Where did Exhibit 500 come from?

January 22, 2013

Damien Echols told an especially bizarre and preposterous lie in a recent interview with some dimwit named Brian Tallerico at Hollywood Chicago.

This particular lie deals with the origin of Exhibit 500, a compendium of Echols’ psychiatric records from the period leading up to the murders. Here is Echols’ version of events:

ECHOLS: When you have to fight against the other lawyers as hard or harder as you do against the state. Jason [Baldwin]’s lawyers. Their entire agenda was to make me look as guilty as possible, thinking somehow it was going to help him. The number one thing that people quote is Exhibit 500, a mental health report, that comes from the fact that, one day, Jason’s attorneys contacted me and said they had this idea that would be really helpful and great. I was naive. It was years ago. OK, sure, let’s do it. This woman comes and writes up this report that diagnoses me with every single mental illness known to mankind. She can’t even file it herself because she’s already perjured herself and so she takes it to another doctor to file. The number one piece of evidence that people use to try and hurt me wasn’t even filed by the state. It was filed by Jason Baldwin’s attorneys.

HOLLYWOODCHICAGO.COM: You’re fighting people who you think should be on your side.

Like most journalists covering this case, Brian Tallerico displays no skepticism whatsoever even when faced with ridiculous stream-of-bullshit statements like this. So here’s a little free fact-checking.

The dossier which came to be known as Exhibit 500 was compiled by Inquisitor, Inc., a private investigation company owned by Ron Lax. In June 1993, soon after the arrests, Ron Lax volunteered his company’s services for the Echols defense pro bono. Lax also worked with the Misskelley defense team over the next nine months, but had little contact with the Baldwin defense team.

Preparing for the original trial (which took place from February 28 to March 19, 1994), Echols’ defense lawyers had to consider the likelihood of a guilty verdict and to make preparations for the penalty phase. If it reached that point, the defense lawyers hoped to spare their client the death penalty by showing mitigating factors. This is standard practice for a death penalty case.

One of Inquisitor, Inc.’s projects was to compile Echols’ psychiatric records in one big file. Inquisitor employee Glori Shettles did much of this work. She acquired documents from Echols’ three 1992 court-ordered institutionalizations, his 1993 counseling sessions and his Social Security disability application. This file was then provided to psychologist James Moneypenny, who examined Echols before trial and reviewed his psychiatric records.

The jury found Echols guilty on March 18. The penalty phase took place on March 19, and the defense called Moneypenny to testify about Echols’ troubled childhood and recent psychiatric problems. It was not an “insanity defense”, just an attempt to evoke enough pity to keep Echols off death row.

The complete trial transcript is online, including James Moneypenny’s testimony. Moneypenny carried a copy of the Inquisitor-compiled dossier to the witness stand and consulted it during his testimony. During cross-examination, prosecutor John Fogleman asked Moneypenny about specific documents and eventually requested that the full dossier be submitted into evidence.

FOGLEMAN: And in regard — back to the East Arkansas Mental Health Center — you’re familiar with Doctor Irby’s report where he visited with Damien Echols on January 5, 1993?
MONEYPENNY: I can’t recall the specific content of that.
FOGLEMAN: Let me show it to you. And if you would, read the part that I have highlighted in pink. This page has the date. It is on the next page.
And I need you to speak up if you could.
MONEYPENNY: (READING) Reports that he thinks a lot about life after death. Quote, I want to where the monsters go, end quote. Describes himself as, quote, pretty much hate the human race, end quote. Relates that he feels people are in two classes, sheep and wolves. Wolves eat the sheep.
FOGLEMAN: Thank you, Doctor. That would be he thinks a lot about life after death and he wants to go where the monsters go?
MONEYPENNY: That’s what it says.
FOGLEMAN: And then are you familiar with the report from January 25th, 1993?
MONEYPENNY: Do you want me to read this?
FOGLEMAN: Yes, sir, if you would read the part in pink.
MONEYPENNY: (READING) Damien explains that he obtains his powers by drinking blood of others. He typically drinks the blood of a sexual partner or of a ruling partner. This is achieved by biting or cutting. He said, quote, it makes me feel like a god, end quote.
FOGLEMAN: It makes him feel like what?
MONEYPENNY: A god.
FOGLEMAN: A god. Okay. Go ahead.
MONEYPENNY: (READING) Damien describes drinking blood as giving him more power and strength.
Then later on the page — (READING) He has also agreed to continue to discuss his issues with power and control as related to his practice of rituals.
FOGLEMAN: And then, finally Doctor, are you familiar with the report where he was seen on January 19th, 1993?
MONEYPENNY: Not the specific content.
FOGLEMAN: You reviewed these reports?
MONEYPENNY: Yes.
FOGLEMAN: If you would read this part?
MONEYPENNY: (READING) Quote, I just put it all inside, end quote.
(READING) Describes this as more than just anger like rage. Sometimes he does, quote, blow up, end quote.
(READING) Relates that when this happens, the only solution is to hurt someone. That’s in quotes.
(READING) Damien reports being told in the hospital that he could be another Charles Manson or Ted Bundy. When questioned on his feelings he states, quote I know I’m going to influence the world. People will remember me, end quote.
FOGLEMAN: We would offer State’s Exhibit 500, these medical records.
[Echols defense lawyer Val] PRICE: We have no objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, without objection, they may be received.

And that’s why we have access to Damien Echols’ psychiatric records for the year before the murders.

Jason Baldwin’s lawyers played absolutely no role in compiling this dossier or in making it part of the trial record.

The notion that one person “wrote up” Exhibit 500 is beyond preposterous. The dossier includes records written by several doctors, nurses, psychologists and social workers in Arkansas and Oregon. It includes Social Security application forms filled out by Echols himself. Is Echols claiming that Glori Shettles forged all these documents?

Anyone with an interest in this case should be familiar with Exhibit 500, not every document but at least a general sense of what’s in it and how it became public. This site’s Damien Echols profile page summarizes the contents. For a journalist interviewing Echols to not know this stuff and to accept Echols’ bullshit at face value is unreal.

{ 169 comments… read them below or add one }

Frank January 22, 2013 at 4:24 pm

THANKS!…..and Lori studied the case thoroughly and listens to his crap with admiring eyes. Under the spell of a psycho just like the reporters seem to be. His lies are so preposterous. Somebody with low selfesteem will think..Did i mis something..am i stupid? Yes Damien is definitely a wolf among sheep.

When there are still people around him who treat him as their master i’m afraid his delusions of grandeur will flourish and he will be capable of hurting again.

In my opinion that makes Lori and all those other supporters more than victims of manipulation alone. I’m sure in one way or another he will fool them all. And that’s not something to look forward to.

Reply

Lyla December 28, 2013 at 4:28 pm

Soo totally agree..

Reply

jacksonbad January 22, 2013 at 4:32 pm

Lorri actively enables her husband’s lying. Given a marriage is a partnership, I suspect she would be expected to help with the family business of profiting off her husband’s murders. The “jounalist” either was willfully ignorant or absolutely clueless. Either way, these failures to challenge Echols make him bolder and his lies the more outrageous.

Sharp piece.

Reply

Greg February 15, 2013 at 11:11 pm

Damien stated in prison that he “Hates Fat People”. Lori’s looking a chubby these days,to put it lightly. I wonder how she feels about that statement?

Reply

Val January 22, 2013 at 4:50 pm

Thanks for this post.

Just an FYI, Echols told this same exact ridiculous story, almost verbatim on the podcast Mohr Stories. He also said TWICE that he and Lorri trusted Baldwins attorneys and were naive to this alleged antagonistic defense. Why he says these absolutely preposterous lies is unknown to me considering its easily refutable as the trial record and is available for anyone to read and Lorri didn’t even meet Echols until after he was convicted.

I can’t decide if he’s delusional or just a liar. Same goes for Lorri Davis.

Reply

ScottH January 22, 2013 at 5:23 pm

Are these “journalists” handpicked prior to the interview? How the hell is this idiot allowed to repeatedly tell lie after lie after lie and then never be questioned about it? Seriously, he is making shit up about a murder trial involving 3 children, and nobody is fact checking? WTF? This has been going on for how long? I could talk to this piece of shit for 3 minutes and ask better questions than he has been asked in all of his interviews combined.

Reply

LLcoolSA January 22, 2013 at 7:29 pm

Keep talking Damien! You’ll be your own downfall soon.

Reply

BrunoFaetten January 22, 2013 at 10:15 pm

Hi, first time poster here. I’ve read every article, and a fair share of the comments, and found this a great resource for hard facts and reasonable discussions of them.

Without going into too much detail, I’ve been following the case on/off for about 10 years, and though I’ve never been a supporter, I’ve not managed to come down 100% on the guilty side of the fence, either. Unsurprisingly, my starting point was PL 1&2, followed by a skim through Devil’s Knot and some internet forums. Frankly, the grotesquerie of the whole case and the almost surreal white-trashness of the cast of characters was what intrigued me the most. In any case, I found Damien in particular so off-putting that I never bothered much with the “Free the WM3″ community.

Having watched PL3 and WoM, I found myself simultaneously intrigued by Hobbs as a suspect, and highly sceptical of some of the new witnesses, which led to my seeking out more information….et voila – here I am. I’ve also been browsing some of the files at Callahan, and reading most this thread: http://www.findadeath.com/forum/showthread.php?3326-West-Memphis-Murders/page53
…which was recommended somewhere in one of these comment threads, specifically for the way a certain jos3ph was laying out the evidence (which he does splendidly, starting on about p. 11).

Well, now that you know where I’m coming from, I thought I could contribute some counterweight at this point. Re: “the 500″, it seems clear from the context of the interview (can’t speak to the podcast – is that Jay Mohr’s, btw?) that Damien isn’t talking about the origin of the document, but the way it was introduced into the appeals process while he was incarcerated. Quote:

“Do you ever allow for wondering what might have been if you had done something a little differently? If you had taken a different approach *ten years ago* it might not have taken another ten to get out?”

Then Lori responds, followed by the quote from Damien, where he also says “it was years ago” which would be odd if he were referring to the initial sentencing. It seems clear that they’re discussing their joint efforts over the last decade, and the way they were sometimes at cross purposes with Jason’s team. He/they may still be attempting
to discredit the document and confuse the audience, but not quite as brazenly as the original post would have it.

Don’t get me wrong – he’s still a creep (and very probably a child murderer), but in this particular instance I think you jumped the gun a tiny bit.

Reply

eddievedderisafecklesssycophant January 22, 2013 at 10:33 pm

You’re probably wrong, there Bruno.
Seems he’s refering to Gloria Shettles, who worked on the orginal document, don’t you think?

If not, who does he mean when he says “This woman comes and writes up this report”?

Reply

BrunoFaetten January 22, 2013 at 10:57 pm

“DAVIS: It can drive me crazy because there were mistakes made and there were people working on the case who had I known they were a psychopath I wouldn’t have gotten them involved but we didn’t know. There are psychopaths working everywhere and it just so happens a lot of them are lawyers.”

“ECHOLS: (…)This woman comes and writes up this report that diagnoses me with every single mental illness known to mankind. She can’t even file it herself because she’s already perjured herself and so she takes it to another doctor to file”

Just based on this, it seems like they’re talking about someone they’ve both dealt with. It could be Lori was speaking generally about her experience, and Damien brought it back to 1994, in which case I’m happy to say I got it wrong. I know very little about the various lawyers involved over the years, and what they’ve been up to specifically. Did this Gloria Shettles perjure herself?

Reply

BradO January 23, 2013 at 12:01 am

One thing a psychopath will do is convince those closest to him that everyone else is the psychopath. Now Lori is convinced it’s not her husband, it’s everyone else, who are psychopathic. This is within 10 seconds of DE making the outrageous claim that one “mystery woman” (who apparently has psycho qualities herself) concocted the exhibit 500. If he is going to lie that brazenly, why didn’t he just say George Bush wrote up Exhibit 500? That is equally believable when bumped up against the truth we’ve known for 20 years.

You ask a question about Gloria Shettles perjuring herself. Why would you ask that? Reason: Quite simply, D.E. is very good at sowing the seeds of confusion. That is how he can tell such a profound lie as he did here and people will give him the benefit of the doubt.

I encourage you to try and catch him at his game. Listen carefully to what he says and when you find yourself feeling confused – bam! He is brain f*cking you.

Reply

BrunoFaetten January 23, 2013 at 1:47 am

I seem to have a knack for confusing others myself – God, me and D are so much alike… No, but seriously, it just seemed to me a more logical reading of this particular exchange, that they were both referring to an attempt by someone working for Jason’s legal team to introduce the 500 into an appeals process at a later stage. Whatever the case, I’m sure Damien is misrepresenting the facts in some way or other, so perhaps I should have asked if Gloria Shettles had been *accused* of perjury back then (’94). The reason I asked was obviously to ascertain whether D really was talking about her, or – as I initially thought – the same “psychopath” Lori was alluding to.

It’s ultimately of little consequence, as it wouldn’t impact my opinion of his guilt, sanity or cuddliness, but as long as they don’t mention any names, and are responding to a question about “ten years ago”, it didn’t seem unreasonable to assume he was talking about something that happened after Lori got involved, rather than at the initial trial/sentencing. I’d still be interested in an answer to that question, though, if for nothing else than to educate myself further.

Reply

Eva_O January 23, 2013 at 5:44 am

I’m pretty sure he’s referring to the trial. When he claims naivety, he’s. playing the poor, ignorant hick teenager angle.

I’ve seen no evidence of Gloria Shettles being accused of perjury, much less charged w/ such. A few yrs ago, she worked for the defense team of Richard Odom, another capital case.

In the above interview, he throws Baldwin under the bus yet again re the Alford agreement. In actuality, if Baldwin didn’t accept the plea, Echols would still be on death row.

Reply

BradO January 23, 2013 at 8:57 am

But don’t you all see it doesn’t matter what he says? He throws out stories of phantom lady here, rogue cop there, a rapist guard over there to get people chasing their tails. The FACTS of the trial and background investigations are there for anyone to see. HE is the one who perjured himself on the stand – yet it’s some other unknown woman who is the perjurer? But it is a waste of time even discussing it because the 500 wasn’t written by one person as he’d have you believe. That should be obvious to anyone.

Reply

Elizabeth January 30, 2013 at 8:02 am

LMAO at Lorri calling people psychopaths. Hoo boy!

Reply

ScottH January 23, 2013 at 12:10 am

Brad, you are giving Echols way too much credit, he isn’t smart enough to even tell cohesive lies from interview to interview. Even during the trial, the smarmy little prick took the stand because he thought he could outsmart the prosecution, and promptly had his ass handed to him. Arrogant yes, sociopathic yes, above average intelligence, no.

Reply

Frank January 23, 2013 at 4:26 am

He even was too stupid to understand the prosecution fried him. He probably thought he did great on the stand.
Anyway….by now he must be convinced worshipping satan pays off well!

Let’s see how the little prick messes up. I’m sure that within the next 10 years he will be involved in yet another highly controversial crime. He will then claim he was set up from day one after his release.

Reply

BradO January 23, 2013 at 8:36 am

I didn’t say anything about his intelligence. I said he was good at sowing the seeds of confusion. The fact that he has thousands of supporters should be evidence of that. Even here in this thread he’s got someone questioning Gloria Shettles’ honor when it is he who is most obviously lying.

If he was intelligent he would know when to shut up. He would remember his lies and not contradict himself.

Reply

BrunoFaetten January 23, 2013 at 5:55 pm

“…he’s got someone questioning Gloria Shettles’ honor when it is he who is most obviously lying.”

I assume you’re referring to me, even though I’ve already explained the purpose of my question. Again: I didn’t express an opinion of, or even an interest in, Glori Shettles’ honour. I suggest you read all of my posts again, and pay particular attention to how they relate to the actual interview that inspired the original post by wm3truth. I happen to be interested in accuracy, and made what I thought – and still think – was a valid observation regarding a possible misreading of Damien’s statements. I made an open invitation to correct this observation, which nobody has thus far taken me up on. I’m sure there are many other fora in which to debate exactly how stupid Damien Echols is, but if that’s as far as your interest goes, have at it. Just don’t misrepresent my statements while you’re doing it.

Reply

BradO January 24, 2013 at 1:19 am

How am I misrepresenting your statements? You asked, and I quote: “Did Gloria Shettles perjure herself?”

I really can’t believe I have to explain this…

If we go back to 2001, why would someone else have “written” exhibit 500 – considering:

1. There was no need to “write” exhibit 500 in 2001 because it already existed.
2. It is a compilation of medical records put together in 1993-1994 – not a report as Echols claims.
3. The medical records contained within were written by dozens of people.

Whether Echols is talking about 2001 or 1994, he is referring to Exhibit 500 as a report written by one woman. He claims Baldwin’s attorneys filed this report to make him look bad. If he is talking 2001, why would Baldwin’s attorneys refile it? The court already had it. If he is talking about 1994, why didn’t Val Price object? No matter how naive Echols may have been, Price wouldn’t have let that through.

Reply

BrunoFaetten January 24, 2013 at 5:56 am

You don’t have to “explain” anything to me, Brad. You’ve simply not understood my posts, and its not a big deal, so let’s just leave it there.

Reply

Eva_O January 26, 2013 at 2:59 pm

Did he not just answer your question? The report already existed.

Not trying to speak for Brad, but I think hes pointing out how Echols twists facts and no one questions the veracity.

Reply

BradO January 23, 2013 at 9:07 am

And Scott, that cuts me to think you believe I would give him credit for anything except child murder and a million half-baked stories.

You’ve insulted me sir and I demand satisfaction.

Reply

BrunoFaetten January 23, 2013 at 1:45 pm

OK, I’ll take one more stab at this before I drop it.
I’ll start by summarizing my point:

He isn’t talking about the *origin* of Exh. 500, but the way it was used in 2000/2001 to establish his incompetency to stand trial in 1993/94. The way he lays it out is dishonest, but not quite as outrageously as to claim it was all fabricated by one woman.

I listened to the Jay Mohr interview, and there, he explicitly says this was an idea one of Jason’s attorneys approached him and Lori with. He does an obvious switcharoo, as this is prompted by a quote from the 500 about his delusional state of mind (“evolving into a higher being” etc.). I then googled “affadavit shettles”, and quickly came across affadavits – speaking to the issue of incompetency – from Shettles herself, Dr. George Woods and Dr. James R. Moneypenny, all from 2000/2001. At the very least, doesn’t that give parts of his claim some basis in truth, even if he is deliberately conflating this “incompetency” strategy with the original compiling of Ex. 500?

Yes, in the interview, he makes it sound as if this happened at the original sentencing. He calls Jessie “mentally handicapped” (“you could tell just by looking at him”), says that Jason “looked about ten” and clearly implies that Jason stabbed him in the back to save his own skin. He piles on the abuse stories (regular beatings, his teeth, his kidneys etc.), maintains that “they” could’ve had him killed for a pack of cigarettes “any day of the week” and generally makes it sound like he was singled out for torture by the whole world. As I’ve previously indicated, I’m not defending him in any way, not even playing “devil’s advocate”. I’m merely suggesting that he’s shrewd enough not to make a patently absurd claim like “Glori Shettles fabricated my entire medical history” (it is “Glori”, not “Gloria”, btw).

Reply

TheOJSimpsons January 23, 2013 at 2:07 pm

Bruno,

Is Damien claiming that this document from 2000 is made up?

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/g_shettles_affidavit.html

Or is he claiming that the exhibit 500 is made up?

Both paint him in a bad light — but to create documents for the ex 500 would be pretty crafty seeing as they were mostly doctors notes and forms from pre-arrest years. Confusing indeed.

Reply

Jenn January 28, 2013 at 5:14 pm

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/g_shettles_affidavit.html

Really does make him look in a better light to a jury then the true files exhibit 500. There is no way those files were made up exhibit 500. They even have the hospital letter head on the forms. Have been signed by several different doctors and nurses. In light of the fact it was in the beginning when this case had no money. The claim that exhibit 500 was made up is just insane.

Reply

BrunoFaetten January 29, 2013 at 4:48 pm

Yes, claiming that those files were “made up” is pretty insane. However, to say that someone “wrote up a report” isn’t the same as saying they “made it up” (i.e. forged/fabricated it). Most of you seem to interpret Damien’s statements to mean the latter. Some people even seem to interpret my posts as supportive of this supposed claim. But then, some people will misquote a simple sentence from the very page they’re posting on, and insist that you didn’t mean what you say you meant. Heck, some people will go so far as to rephrase your argument and present it as a counterargument, just so they can keep regurgitating their favourite talking points.

Reply

Jack203 January 23, 2013 at 3:13 pm

Good points, and very interesting. Thanks for posting.

Reply

BradO January 24, 2013 at 8:50 am

” I then googled “affadavit shettles”, and quickly came across affadavits – speaking to the issue of incompetency – from Shettles herself, Dr. George Woods and Dr. James R. Moneypenny, all from 2000/2001. At the very least, doesn’t that give parts of his claim some basis in truth, even if he is deliberately conflating this “incompetency” strategy with the original compiling of Ex. 500?”

No. Here’s why. Psychopaths deliberately throw in a touch of the truth so they can lie their way out if confronted directly. Fact is Echols’ own attorneys filed the petition on Feb. 27, 2001 with regard to his mental competency to stand trial in ’94.

Are you saying the filing could have been Baldwin’s attorneys’ idea therefore DE’s story in the interview was based on the truth?

Reply

ScottH January 23, 2013 at 3:31 pm

Brad, you and I obviously feel the same way about that scumbag, my larger point is that there are many people who seem to believe Echols is highly intelligent, which in my opinion is hilarious. My apologies to you sir, you and I clearly sit on the same side of the fence.

Reply

Rhoda Y. Fulton January 23, 2013 at 6:56 pm

This is repeated and expanded on the next page including the allegation that Damien smeared the blood over his body and “Damien, at that time, stated he was a white witch who worshipped the devil.” (p. 375) This quote is immediately followed by: “Major symptoms at the time of this admission do include a pattern of bizarre behavior and unusual thought processes, including Damien’s belief that he is a vampire and that he does worship the devil.” Which eventually made its way into Damien’s therapy plan. “Psychotic Disorder. . . as manifested by (give examples): Damien grabbed a peer and began to suck the blood out of his neck. He and his girlfriend had planned on having a baby boy & then sacrifice the baby.” (p. 403) In some instances it has Damien admit to sucking blood out of the peer’s neck – even though the event didn’t happen in this manner (ps. 369, 417). In the latter reference, Damien is quoted as giving a reason for the blood sucking. “Damien indicated he sucked blood to get into gang.” On an (only slightly) less sensationalistic note, Damien said he voluntarily drank blood from others as part of a bonding/power ritual.

Reply

BradO January 24, 2013 at 1:27 am

Scott, no need to apologize for it was me waking up on the wrong side of the bed. I owe you a beer.

Reply

Matt January 25, 2013 at 6:15 am
Ralphie Mae January 25, 2013 at 8:52 am

The review is typical uninformed supporter pablum. Of interest is how it dismisses Pam Hobbs, though. This has become common in other reviews of West O’. She’s turned her tricks and has been let out of the car in a rough ‘hood. It’s a role she knows all too well, and her supporter johns took advantage of her. She probably will be blamed in the next series.

Reply

Frank January 26, 2013 at 5:28 am

The reviewer made the mistake of liking the form of the “documentary” and therefore believing the content. Or worse…Telephoned the free the wm3 gang.

Reply

distantobserver January 25, 2013 at 11:12 am

The review you refer to is excellent, by the way.
It does address the question why Pamela Hobbs did not speak out earlier. It does not accuse her of this, though. Just take a look at how many dysfunctional families are involved in this story. Or think for a moment how many dysfunctional families are there in all strata of society, including the upper classes (criminal story after criminal story coming out about the affluent families that kept up their fronts). So these people also did their best to keep up appearances. Stepfathers abusing their stepchildren is such a common story even you guys so set on the thesis “criminal justice is always right” might agree to it. Abused wives sheltering their abusers and abusers of their children are all over the place. Those wives are not really psychologically ready to admit the truth until the relationship is finished for good. I for one do not blame them – not does the review, BTW – human nature being what it is, the self-delusion is understandable. BUT: statistics all over the world confirm the simple dictum – BEWARE OF STEPFATHERS.

Reply

Jack203 January 25, 2013 at 12:55 pm

Not only have I never heard anyone on this site state “criminal justice is always right”. I’ve never heard anything remotely close to it.

There are many problems with our criminal justice system and it is wrong constantly. Cases are overturned frequently and the wrongly convicted are released from prison. 99.9% of the time this happens, there is no outrage. What makes this case unique is the amount of outrage against the perpetrators of this crime remains strong. There is a reason for this. The WM3 are most likely guilty.

For your thought on BEWARE OF STEPFATHERS. Has there ever been another documented case where a stepfather killed his children and unrelated playmates? What you speak of is a phenomenon that just doesn’t happen. Could there have been a first time with Terry Hobbs? Yes, it is possible, but not likely, and never realistically explored (the latter point being used to optimal advantage by the WM3 defense.)

I detailed the amount of “coincidences” that would have had to happen in my last post for the WM3 to be innocent. If the WM3 really are innocent, I have two observations. 1) They were more or less framed by the police (which is completely absurd) 2) They also happen to be the unluckiest group of kids ever that all these circumstances and coincidences happened to align against them at the same time.

Reply

Eva_O January 26, 2013 at 3:18 pm

Pam Hobbs is simply not credible.

She claims that Terry molested her daughter twice — when the child was 4 and again @ 13 — yet did nothing to protect her daughter? Terry shot her brother in ’99 — yet Pam doesn’t divorce this man until 2004.

Pam stood by her man for 10+ years. One minute, she thinks Terry did it. Next, she’s sending him apologetic text msg’s and having picnics.

The Moore family appear to be the only functional people in this tragedy.

Reply

Jenn January 27, 2013 at 5:04 pm

Pam Hicks ( Hobbs) sent her father and brother to beat up her husband . Two huge men against a small man ?. Pam could have picked up the phone and called 911 on Terry but didn’t. Why not she had done it before? Terry to defend himself pulls out the gun from the car. The brother jumps him anyways and gets shot. Who is really violent here the people coming to beat someone up and maybe kill him or Terry?
Pam’s sister says that she stopped over the day that Stevie went missing (now she doesn’t even know Stevie is missing ) and says that Terry is washing the house down with Clorox . Washing drapes and his muddy clothes with blood on them. Pam never mentions the smell in her house. Where does Terry get all this time? The sister in law is just a liar or crazy.
The sister in law says that Terry molested Stevie. Now she didn’t tell Pam for 18 years or Pam did nothing about it. Pam accuses Terry of molesting Amanda but leaves Terry with Amanda twice. Terry didn’t try to stop her from leaving him nor did he say that she couldn’t take Amanda. Pam just thinks it is better for her if she doesn’t have the extra baggage to start over.
The film West Memphis. Notice they showed you the turtle eating the pig while it was floating and stopped the film after it reached a certain point. Why didn’t they shove the pig in the mud and let the turtle keep feeding? Well because there would have been more than just bite marks on the children. Ears missing, mouths missing, fingers missing, these turtles can eat road kill in a few hours. These children were missing overnight. Only one child was castrated and all finger and toes and ears were still there. None of the children were eaten.

Reply

Christina January 25, 2013 at 2:35 pm

Echols should carry around a little notebook that he can refer back to of what he has previously lied about.
Can you imagine Echols being asked a question and he says, “hold on – I have the answer right here” while flipping through the pages? hee hee

Reply

Eva_O January 26, 2013 at 3:21 pm

He doesn’t need one, as it appears the questions are screened and his responses well rehearsed. No one will ever question him on inconsistencies.

But thumbs up on your post. I got a much needed giggle w/ the visual :)

Reply

Matt January 25, 2013 at 6:12 pm

‘The review you refer to is excellent, by the way’.

Yes, I especially like the bit where the reviewer says the 3 were exonerated.

Reply

distantobserver January 26, 2013 at 12:13 pm

“There are many problems with our criminal justice system and it is wrong constantly. Cases are overturned frequently and the wrongly convicted are released from prison. 99.9% of the time this happens, there is no outrage. What makes this case unique is the amount of outrage against the perpetrators of this crime remains strong. There is a reason for this. The WM3 are most likely guilty”.

This paragraph is a actually a perfect illustration of the mindset “criminal justice is always right”. So if there is an error, the case will be overturned on appeal. Corrections are built into the system.

In fact, very few cases are overturned on appeal. The appeal goes to the same judge that presided over the initial trial. Judges are human beings (plus up for reelection). The have to save face and cannot afford to admit to mistakes. The cases that HAVE been overturned recently are mostly due to new DNA analysis, promoted by the Innocence Project and other similar organisations, which are NOT part of the system. There are also lawyers working pro bono (as, at least partly, in this case) – not something provided for by the system.

This is from the description of the book “False Justice” on Amazon:

Former Ohio Attorney General crusades against wrongful conviction and shows how citizens can prevent this terrifyingly common miscarriage of justice.

“Wrongful criminal conviction is much more frequent than most Americans believe. The thought of imprisoned innocent people haunted me. I became determined to try to do something about it.” – Jim Petro, Former Attorney General of Ohio

The flaws in America’s execution of justice lead to an unacceptable number of wrongful criminal convictions. Jim Petro was confronted with this issue when the guilt of several convicts serving life sentences was called into question. In False Justice, Jim and Nancy Petro detail and challenge eight myths of justice:

“Everyone in prison claims innocence.”
“Our system almost never convicts an innocent person.”
“Only the guilty confess.”
“Wrongful convictions are caused by innocent human error.”
“An eyewitness is the best testimony.”
“Conviction errors get corrected on appeal.”
“It dishonors the victim to question a conviction.”
“If the justice system has problems, the pros will fix them.” ”

Sounds familiar? This is what the guilters always think.
Petro, BTW, does not address the WM3 case.

“What makes this case unique is the amount of outrage against the perpetrators of this crime remains strong”

What actually makes this case unique is that the HBO team filmed the whole of the court proceedings- They initially did not do this to prove their innocence or show the corruption of the justice system. They just wanted to make a well-selling film on satanic cults and how these lead to murders. Problem is, they opened the whole procedure up for the public – and 50% of the public felt as if they had been punched in the stomach by the lack of justice they were witnessing. With more evidence, the following series raised the percentage of those stunned by what they had seen – which led to the world-wide movement. The rest is history.

So what sets this case apart is that, unlike in 99% of the cases, the actual trial was shown to the public. God only knows what goes on in the trials of the rest of the cases.

Is it difficult to see why the guilters are outraged? Because for once they did see that the system is very far from perfect, that people are sentenced to death on evidence that is magnitudes less than reasonably required for a decision that the defendants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And for once they saw that the system has no intention of correcting its mistakes. And all of this got a huge amount of publicity. The breaking of myths is hard to bear.

You also say there was no outrage in “99%” of the cases where the innocent people imprisoned and/or on the Death Row were finally released. The question is, WHY was there no outrage? Not against the persons proved innocent but against the SYSTEM. Many of these people had spent years and years in prison, or years and years on the Death Row, until the Innocence Project stepped in (and remember, only a small percentage of people can be exonerated through DNA, what about false confessions, jailhouse snitches, false identifications – the list goes on). There should have been a HUGE outrage against the system in every one of these cases, and websites similar to this one condemning the system that robbed these people of decades of their lives, exposed them to the iniquities of the Death Row. etc.

So the outrage now against WM3 DOES have a reason, but not the one you point out. It is essentially outrage against the system being exposed as NOT capable of righting its own wrongs, the system that takes away 18 years of three peoples lives and only lets them go as an exception – because this case happened, by sheer chance, to garner a lot of publicity. I believe the guilters really, on a conscious level, do believe in the guilt of WM3. The zeal of proving this is provided by unconscious causes – IF these people are really innocent, the whole edifice of the guilters’ world view would come crushing on them.

Finally, am I a “supporter” of WM3? Do I believe 100% that they did not do it? (Otherwise put, am a a “groupie” of Damien Echols?) NO.

They (or he alone, or he with other unidentified companions) may, theoretically, have done it. But them, one can never prove a negative. Yet do I think there was anywhere enough evidence against them to convict them? ABSOLUTELY NOT. And this is what matters. If a system declares everyone is innocent until proven guilty, then by this very declaration they are innocent. They were certainly never proven guilty to any rational human standard.

Reply

Eva_O January 26, 2013 at 3:24 pm

A judge doesn’t determine guilt. A jury does.

In this case, the ASSC upheld all of Butnetts rulings.

Reply

Eva_O January 26, 2013 at 3:26 pm

Bu*r*nett, before I get called on my typo.

Reply

Jack203 January 27, 2013 at 12:30 pm

“They were certainly never proven guilty to any rational human standard.”

Perhaps that is true and we have different standards on reasonable doubt.

This discussion ties in the 2 hour dateline (The girl with the blue mustang”) on Raymond Lee Jennings. Jennings was convicted of murder even though there wasn’t a scrap of physical evidence. In fact he turned in his security guard uniform a few days later UNWASHED, and there was nothing, no blood splatter, gun residue. Unlike Echols who was seen near the location muddy, and his trenchcoat he wore everywhere mysteriously never being seen again.

All they had on Jennings was some statemements he made during police interrogation. Not a confession, but statements that could be interpreted he knew more about the crime than he said he knew. The confessions Jesse made were 100 x’s more convincing.

In addition Jennings was a war veteran and a father of five with NO criminal record of any kind. He had nowhere near the psychological profile of a complete psychopath as Echols did in 1993.

Regardless, Jennings was convicted. After watching the two hour dateline, I thought there was a good chance he was guilty, because it was the most likely scenario, but I thought there was a very strong case of reasonable doubt in his defense. I also kept in mind, I did not know 100% of the details, and I was also aware the slant of Dateline was absolutely not in Jennings defense, as everyone they interviewed was with the family of the victim and pro-prosecution (ex: private investigator)

I guess Jennings needed an HBO documentary. The case against the WM3 was easily 1,000x’s stronger.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36920379/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports/t/girl-blue-mustang/

Reply

Jenn January 27, 2013 at 5:07 pm

TY reasonable doubt is the magic word :)

Reply

Matt January 26, 2013 at 1:37 pm

Jesus Christ that was a long post. Why do supporters continue to beat the same drum regarding innocent people who are convicted of a crime. Yes we get it, innocent people are convicted all the time and I have never heard a non say it doesn’t happen. But when you ask a supporter to give an example of an innocent person who has repeatedly confessed (apart from Jessie obviously) to the crime they are convicted of they can’t.

Reply

Eva_O January 26, 2013 at 3:31 pm

There are cases of multiple false confessions, but I’ yet to see any post conviction.

Reply

Eva_O January 26, 2013 at 3:47 pm

http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usma&c=wm3&id=1897

Interesting article, albeit old and off topic. Claims Jessie Sr had a thing w/ Pam Echols? 1st I have heard that.

Kinda blows the “Damien barely knew Jessie ” claims out the window.

Reply

Marian July 13, 2013 at 8:45 am

Why? Do you bring your kids along with you to a booty call or to visit a boyfriend to sleep with him?

Reply

ScottH January 26, 2013 at 8:05 pm

Supporters like to claim that these three morons were wrongfully convicted, That they were chosen because they were a little different, wore black clothes and listened to heavy metal music etc. etc. Yet even though they were supposedly mistakenly singled out, not one of the three has a viable alibi. what are the odds of this? you can go to any city in the country, pick three people, even three friends, around the time of any murder and odds are at least one of them is going to have a rocksolid alibi, and if they weren’t even together at the time of said murder like the 3 claim, it would be even more of a certainty. yet not one of these idiots had one, what are the odds? This is specifically why anyone who mentions the PL “documentaries” as some kind of proof of wrongful conviction immediately discredits themselves. Distant observer, they didn’t open up anything to the public, they showed a one sided biased version of the trial, kinda funny the general public has no clue Echols mocked the victims parents huh? Why is it that his behavior was swept under the rug like that? Almost like they had an agenda. The only people who have been truly “opened up” to this case are the people who have actually read the trial transcripts, not the ones who saw what amounts to about 8 total minutes through 3 PL films. Saying the Paradise Lost fed supporters saw this trial is like saying someone read War and Peace because they looked at the cover. It’s actually embarrassing reading most comment sections about this case, the ignorance is astounding, no, frightening actually.

As I’ve said numerous times, had these really been documentaries, Berlinger and Sinofsky would have mentioned, at least once, across 3 separate movies, Echols lengthy mental history/exhibit 500, horseshit alibis, and multiple confessions including post-conviction from JM. They spend half of the films trying to make Byers look guilty, but can’t seem to be bothered to spend a fraction of that energy investigating Echols fucked up beyond belief past? The poster boy of the movies? Wtf? Make no mistake, those 2 assclowns are responsible for this entire circus, without their propaganda bullshit, Misskelley and Baldwin would still be rotting in prison, and Echols would be in he ground, exactly where he belongs.

Reply

BradO January 28, 2013 at 9:43 am

Perhaps supporters could argue the perspective that violent psychopaths, suffering from psychosis and homicidal ideation and who have at least a casual link to the crimes are not always the actual perpetrators of the crimes?

Is there another case on record where a psychopath found guilty of a crime was exonerated? I think it’s an interesting question and would really like to know.

I will pop the popcorn and await a response.

Reply

Eva_O January 29, 2013 at 6:02 pm

Best post ever!

Reply

Cory January 27, 2013 at 11:51 am

To me it’s been shocking how a poorly informed freedom movement has snowballed around this case, mostly because of the PL movies.

Irresponsible celebrities lending their names & money to this case have only made it worse. The PL movies, Echol’s constant re-imaginings of events through his books & interviews, etc. all serve to obfuscate and bury the facts of this case. I cringe thinking about the upcoming ‘Devils Knot’ movie is going to bring to the table.

We now have a near mythology involving snapping turtles, mysterious black guys in truckstops, multiple murderous stepfathers, manhole sewer theories, corrupt local police & government official conspiracies, Echol’s grueling life or death battles in prison, etc.

People would rather argue every fine point of circumstantial evidence & accept alternative half baked murder scenarios rather than accept Miskelley’s simple description of a chance encounter that begins as a bullying & escalates into murder: http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmfeb.html . I just don’t get it – Occam’s razor.

Good to see people going beyond the PL movies in regards to this case. Echol’s weird fabrications will only serve to make people suspicious about the whole thing. If he was smart he should just stop talking about the case all together … but he doesn’t strike me as overly bright.

Reply

distantobserver January 28, 2013 at 9:30 am

WARNING: this is a long post so anybody having trouble with reading longer texts had better skip it!

“Jesus Christ that was a long post. Why do supporters continue to beat the same drum regarding innocent people who are convicted of a crime. Yes we get it, innocent people are convicted all the time and I have never heard a non say it doesn’t happen”.

Yes, that was a long post, so what? Do you have trouble reading longer texts? Are you limited to one-sentence posts of the nature “Of course they are guilty”? Have you ever taken the trouble to actually read not the long post but long BOOKS – I admit they are far longer and far more trouble to get through – let’s say on the subject of false confessions? There are quite a few around by now and I have read them, as well as ALL the documentation about this particular case, provided BOTH by supporters and guilters.

In a way, the very complaint of the post being “long” gives you away as a person averse to really delving into long and complex texts and analyses. A typical person who would say “Yes they are guilty because the jury said so and the state rejected their appeals”.

I am new to this particular case but recognise all the usual signs of “Yes, we get it, innocent people are convicted, but …”. The notorious “Yes, but …”. This was exactly what the post was about – the perennial “Yes, but … – not in this particular case!” And what about the other particular cases where the proof is incontrovertible (and where the wrongfully accused have not been just black people or “trailer trash” but respectable middle-class people we are not particularly interested in!) ?

We do not set up websites for those who were 100% percent cleared by DNA analysis? Do you even now what supermax prisons actually mean? How do the survivors survive after they have been released? It has been proved that many of these “facilities” actually drive the inmates insane (I’ll provide the link to the Journal later, but I can warn you: it is a LONG text, and complex, too). How are these people supposed to “carry on” with their lives?

Do you participate in any efforts to help them? (I do, by the way).
On a completely different thread (yes, liberal and, yes, blue-state) a participant asked “Why do the non-supporters so desperately WANT these people to be guilty?” This is what my post tried to give an answer to: because these people DESPERATELY need to believe that in 99% of the cases the “state” is right, the justice prevails, the system is excellent and when it does make mistakes it corrects them on its own. So let’s forget about the cases where the Innocent Project of other organisations OUTSIDE the system have righted the wrongs. Let’s focus on the case where the system has held its own, no matter that the makers of the first series of “Paradise Lost” were STUNNED by how these people were railroaded. No matter that the judge later said that allowing filmmakers in the courtroom was a big mistake. One can only guess why…
Because if we can only prove that the critics were wrong in this case, we can vindicate the whole system and sleep well at night (until something like this strikes our own family). That’s ultimately the reason the “non-supporters” (guilters) so desperately WANT these defendants to be guilty.

P.S. Yes, one can easily confess to one (wrong) thing several times – if one has the reasoning abilities of a six-year old and hopes to gain from the confession (all kinds of things, including first the reward and finally just a reduction/cancellation of one’s sentence). What about the testimony of all those jail-house snitches (it beggars belief why these are even legally admitted, since a person so clearly profits by a (false) testimony)? Documented cases? I could probably find some but think of the 99% of the cases that go undocumented just because they do not have the good luck of an HBO executive accidentally reading about a “Satan cult trial” in West Memphis and thinking it would make a good-selling documentary?

Reply

BradO January 28, 2013 at 10:06 am

Distantobserver… Not sure what you are going on about. You have the timeline all messed up. DE (in my opinion) was in fact insane before incarceration. After the day to day order of supermax, he was more able to control himself as evidenced by all the jailhouse interviews.

And it doesn’t matter if you are liberal or not. The most rabid of the nons longs for the days of Jimmy Carter and hopes for an Obama 3rd term. I happen to disagree… But so what?

Also, nons do support the release of innocent people. For me, Diane Fleming being the most important case where I feel someone was wrongfully convicted.
(http://www.dldewey.com/fleming.htm).

Also you indicate the PL videos as stunning people with how railroaded the 3 were. Well, I am sure some German media “STUNNED” Germans when they revealed in 1933 how Jews were rat-like, money grubbing sewer dwellers who were pushing the nation into war. However, I think we all know it was propaganda. PL is a shameful series in that it cuts out the most damning evidence against the three while trying to frame people who suffered the most from the crime.

As you are new, don’t stop at the films. Look at the real evidence – not what you are being fed.

Reply

Jack203 January 28, 2013 at 11:39 am

This is just nonsense.

distantobserver – I’m a blue state liberal too. So what? That is completely irrelevant as there is no political affiliation for the “Nons”. Furthermore, I have not meant one single non who wants to believe all convicted felons are guilty because they can “sleep better at night”.

I brought up the Jennings case because you seem to think you need the crime needs to be videotaped and the accused victims DNA found everywhere the police look to surpass reasonable doubt. I dare you to research the Jennings case. You’ll find someone convicted of murder where the evidence against him is non-existent. Talk about a guy that needs a documentary made. If you think reasonable doubt should be held to a higher standard, the Jennings case is a 1000 x’s better case to work on than the WM3.

I have seen at least a half dozen documentaries that convinced me that the convicted were most likely innocent. The Norfolk Four, is a perfect (and fitting). You’ll notice that false confessions were pivotal in this case. Unlike the WM3, the Norfolk four have a very strong case of innocence.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/

Frontline has an established name and a record of objectivity. I am skeptical of everything….even when my source is credible. The Paradise Loss propagandists have neither credibility or a record of objectivity.

Reply

Justin January 28, 2013 at 1:20 pm

Wow. You all are nuts. I have no reason to believe or stick up for DE and the WM3 but look at the facts. Find one crime where kids were doing satanic rituals. It doesnt happen. can I say 100% they are innocent, no. But there seems to me to be more evidence pointing at Hobbs. The police work was so shoddy its embarrassing. What about the neighbor whos says she saw hobbs with the boys around 6, which he denies. The police never canvassed the area to question the neighbors? What about the fact Hobbs has no alibi and LIED about where he was. His own friends say his alibi isn’t true and he wasnt with them when he says. His ex wife thinks he did it. She kissed some other hispanic man in there house, Hobbs own words. He “doesn’t get mad he gets even”. What about testimony that this wasnt kids, this was someone who knew the kids and knew what he was doing. Even the satanic ritual they claim was the cause was wrong. It was proven that animals bite or scratched tha body’s post mortem. The whole cas was bungled from the start. If you follow the actual evidence and not hear say or made up crap about how DE was crazy you find the evidence points FAR more toward Hobbs then DE or the WM3. Shoddy police work and the sad reality that you are judged by how you look and what you wear nad the panic htat set in the belief that they wanted to catch the killer of such a heinous crime make this case and embarressment for our judicial systme and the prosecution in this case ande especially the criminally negligent police work in my opinion. Jsut watch PL3 and listen to the prosections argument about evidence and you get any idea how shaddy this cas was. End of rant and cant wait to see West of Memphis.

Reply

wm3truth January 28, 2013 at 3:26 pm

“Find one crime where kids were doing satanic rituals.”

The prosecution never claimed that Echols, Baldwin & Misskelley performed a Satanic ritual during the murders. WM3 supporters from Paradise Lost onward have exaggerated the Satanism angle to distract from the actual evidence in this case. Read these:

http://wm3truth.com/2012/02/has-there-ever-been-a-satanic-murder/
http://midsouthjustice.org/smf/index.php?topic=143.new

There have been many documented horrible murders by occult-obsessed sadistic psychopaths in their teens or early 20s, either alone or in small groups. Killers comparable to the WM3 include: Natasha Cornett; Rod Ferrell; Christa Pike; Ricky Kasso; Sandy Charles; the Chicago Ripper Crew; Royce Casey, Jacob Delashmutt and Joseph Fiorella; Frans du Toit and Theuns Kruger; Jason Brumwell, Daniel Rabago, Johl Brock and Michael Hayward.

Reply

Justin January 30, 2013 at 10:44 pm

Just wanted to say i read just about your whole site and you are a lying scumbag who should be ashamed of himself. The worst and most misleading of your lies is in the New suspect/Terry Hobbs section.
“The Ballard/Williams/Moyer testimony is highly suspicious. WMPD officers canvassed that neighborhood repeatedly in 1993 asking if anyone had seen the three murdered boys on May 5. How and why did these three witnesses avoid talking to police in 1993? And how do they remember the day and time so precisely sixteen years later?”
I cant say whether or not Hobbs is guilty but I can say there was alot of potential evidence pointing his way, far more then pointed at the WM3. I mean real evidence not lying criminal testimony that was since been recanted and hear sy bs. It is a known fact the police did not in fact canvass the neighborhood around the house Stevie Branch lived with his mother and Hobbs. The girl who saw Hobbs with the boys at 630 was only 13-14 at the time and was nieve enough to believe the police were doing there job and would eventually question them since they lived two houses down but no just like they never bothered to look at Hobbs back in 93 when they could have atleast vetted him like they did with Byers. I think Byers was an early favorite suspect before it quickly went to DE and the police heard what they wanted and found someone to pin the crime on guilty or not. You lying to people about facts to make your case sound better proves this whole site is a shame.

Reply

Justin January 30, 2013 at 10:46 pm

And she knew the time and day precisely because they went to church every wednesday night at 6-630. Not such an odd thing to remember when you think about it.

Reply

Jack203 January 30, 2013 at 11:27 pm

1) I can give the benefit of the doubt to a 13-14 year old not realizing the importance of at least mentioning to the police that they saw the three children precisely the time they went missing, but the mother is much more difficult to comprehend.

2) When they did finally come forward, they contacted the defense first, and not the police. It is a well known fact the WM3 defense was offering witnesses for “information”. They were paid.

I don’t summarily dismiss them, but it’s hard to put too much credence in their affidavits. I would be very interested to see how well they would have done on the stand and during cross examination.

Reply

Jack203 January 28, 2013 at 4:20 pm

Justin, any thoughts on PL2?

If you haven’t seen it yet. Spoiler alert. The documentary writers figure out who the killer is. It’s Mark Byers!

Reply

Cory January 28, 2013 at 10:39 pm

Dude have you seen part3?

Total twist ending!

Reply

Jenn January 28, 2013 at 5:26 pm

Justin,
Here this is just one of hundreds. When the FBI said that they can’t link it to Satanist .What they meant was to the church itself. There are hundreds of dabblers out there that make up what they think the religion means. If you need more I will be happy to provide you with more cases. They are very graphic so they are not for the weak of heart. If you want to get a support group for them too just make sure they move next to you when you let them out .
Jenn

http://www.murderpedia.org/male.G/g/gecht-robin.htm

Reply

Justin January 30, 2013 at 10:54 pm

Agian they had much more of a motive being that they were heterosexual men who raped and then killed women. It is plausable and likely even, that their true objective was sex, or really rape. The WM3 suppossedly anally raped atleast one boy, though i dont believe the victims were ever sexually assualted, but none of the 3 were gay or attracted to men in the least. DE had many known girlfriends and none of the 3 now are gay and have relationships with women. Tell me the motive for the WM3? You cant because there isnt one. People kill for a reason not just to be in a satanic cult.

Reply

Jack203 January 31, 2013 at 12:14 am

Never heard of thrill kill? That’s what many serial killers do. What happened on May 5th 1993 fits best with the thrill kill scenario.

The exact thoughts going through the sociopaths mind does NOT matter. The satanism and dabbling are pointless whether he was one or not. What does matter is that Echols was a certifiable psychopath. This has been explained to you multiple times on this site, but you continue to dredge it back up.

There are hundreds of cases of sociopaths and serial killer “thrill kills”, and Groups of teenage (always with a sociopath leader, and their influenced followers unable to think on their own) killing groups of people.

That is a hundred times more likely than a redneck step dad killing his step son and two playmates. (I am still waiting for another example of anything close to this happening). Killing the step son is one thing which does happen, but playmates too is just a phenomenon that I don’t think has ever happened before.

Reply

Justin January 28, 2013 at 1:32 pm

One last comment. A quote from DE lawyers that I think is pretty powerful. Not word for word but at end of PL3 after they give the Alford plea, DE lawyers had one of the most profound statements of the all 3 movies. Do you really think the state would have allowed the WM3 to give Alford pleas and go free if they really believed they had committed a statanic ritual murder of three kids. If they really truly believed they were guilty they NEVER would have allowed them to go free.
Id love to hear someone explain that cause they don t let child murders go free

Reply

Jack203 January 28, 2013 at 8:53 pm

“Id love to hear someone explain that cause they don t let child murders go free”

Casey Anthony says hello.

Some may disagree, but depending on what evidence was admissible, I do think there was a decent chance of mistrial/acquittal.

Millons of dollars and a top notch defense goes a long way in the courtrooms (OJ Simpson says hello too) as well as making poor people in a poverty stricken area remember things 17 years later they never shared with police.

Pamela Hobbs ended up playing a pivotal role in the WM3 release. She was a complete wildcard/random element that could have made a hard case to prove much more difficult. The latest I heard of her, she was keeping the last name Hobbs and going to picnics and posing for pictures with Terry in 2012. Her and her family sure liked Peter Jackson’s money. I hope it was worth it.

Reply

jackson bad January 28, 2013 at 3:36 pm

Oh, that’s crap Justin, prosecutors accept must lesser pleas every day to settle cases. The defense attorneys simply were trying to save face after years of claiming they would win new trials and they coudn’t.

Reply

ScottH January 28, 2013 at 4:10 pm

Justin, can I give you and every person here one suggestion. On Amazon, there is a book/Kindle digital download called abomination, authored by William Ramsey. this is a well educated man who relied not on the PL docs, but poured over all trial documents, and presents the timeline quite well. He in fact does give multiple instances of murder involving occult beliefs and satanic influences. I’m not talking about satanistic rituals, as I do not believe that was the case with the wm3, however he does clearly show Echols affinity for both, it is undeniable. anyway, it really is a fascinating read, and finally someone has completely laid out the work a person really needs to do to get the full picture of this case.

He also correctly blames the media and ignorant celebrities, in my opinion hitting the nail on the head, for devolving this case into the circus of propaganda and lies that the majority of people have amazingly come to accept as factual. including one of my biggest issues, the complete lack of any kind of investigative work by journalists who interview Echols and sit back and allow him to lie into the camera, over, and over, and over.

Reply

Little Jenn May 15, 2013 at 11:47 pm

I know I’m quite a bit late on this, but I’d like to thank you for the book recommendation. It’s awfully hard to find books about this case that don’t take a definite stance that the 3 aren’t guilty of these crimes. I’m not sure what I believe, but I think factual information is hard to come by, and this seems to have fulfilled my need for facts.
So, thank you for this. :)

Reply

Jenn January 28, 2013 at 6:13 pm

Justin ,
Just in case you need more of stupid dabbler killers . http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Youth-Sentenced-in-Girl-s-Horrific-Slaying-2852135.php

Reply

justin January 30, 2013 at 8:26 pm

those kids had clear motive of improving the fortunes of there “death metal band” and probaly thinking it would get em rich. Also it says that they were using hard drugs like meth and crack which can truly warp your mind a thought process. Find me a case were really is no motive and nothing to gain from committing.murder other then the “satanic ritual”. I have heard of a couple of real cults that committed murder but usually still had a motive to pick there victim. Maybe you could find a one but it’s sook rare and for the police in WM to go basically straight to there satanic cult theory just shows me laziness on there part. I believe Fogelman and at least some of PD knew they didn’t have any evidence and I would think knew they were innocent but needed to wrap this up and calm the community as fast as possible and found some semi-plausible poor white trash suspects who no one but immediately family would miss. I def don’t agree but can see why it would be important to get a quick conviction so the community can move on. It’s just said that people can be found guilty of murder with really no evidence at all and testimony from known liars and criminals. And that some of you people who think the government is evil and out to get you but the state could never falsely convict someone or liar even though they have obvious motives to have the case wrapped up as quick as possible. Enough ranting and I hope I didn’t offend anybody and I challenge anyone to actually convince me the wm3 are guilty because I do have an open mind to actual facts.

Reply

Jack203 January 31, 2013 at 12:02 am

“I believe Fogelman and at least some of PD knew they didn’t have any evidence and I would think knew they were innocent but needed to wrap this up and calm the community as fast as possible and found some semi-plausible poor white trash suspects who no one but immediately family would miss.”

Justin, thank you for proving me correct! If the WM3 are actually innocent, it was almost certainly a massive police conspiracy to frame them.

I’m not buying it.

1) Teenagers listening to heavy metal were ubiquitous in the country at that time. The thought that police would knowingly frame 16-18 year old kids such as this, lock them up for life, and/or have them executed, would make every single one of that police conspiracy just as sociopathic as Damien Echol’s exhibit 500 prove he was.

2) And what happens when the next batch of kids is murdered in WM or the town next over? How would the police explain that? Or did the police just know whoever brutally murdered three little kids was going to stop.

Most sociopaths that have the ability to commit this crime, absolutely would not stop.

The police made mistakes, but they definitely thought they had the right guys. And lo and behold, there was no more multiple children being killed at once after the WM3 were locked up.

If the police didn’t lock up Echols in 1993, it is likely more murders would have followed.

Reply

Spengler January 31, 2013 at 12:04 am

“Enough ranting and I hope I didn’t offend anybody and I challenge anyone to actually convince me the wm3 are guilty because I do have an open mind to actual facts”

Are you kidding me?
This is coming from someone who considers himself neutral and “open to actual facts”, you are the LAST person that I would bother trying to convince.
You don’t mean to offend anyone? You just called a person a lying scumbag and that person is probably your greatest ally if you’re looking for actual facts.
If you read “almost the whole site” and didn’t get a single thing from it, then you’re honestly just too biased and unable to process information without filtering it.

The big question you keep asking is for us to show you the same crime being commited before.
Why? Who cares? They showed you a bunch and you’re just like, no no the EXACT same crime. Why can’t it be unique?
You’re going down a rabbit hole that no one will ever be able to get you out of. You could do the exact same thing with Terry Hobbs. I gaurantee you won’t find a similar case if Hobbs were the murderer, including your “none of them are homosexual” theory.
But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that Hobbs may have done it. That’s fine.

It’s just that the wm3 are MUCH more likely suspects.

I understand why people want to believe they were innocent, but it fucking boggles my mind why anyone would ever rule them out of the case completely. Because you watched a fucking movie? Because Peter Jackson said so?

You want actual lies? Watch PL 2 & 3 and listen to the wm3 propaganda.
The lies are astounding. Those are the kinds of lies that should be pissed off about. This site may be biased, but it’s honest. Here you’re nitpicking, but there, you’re swallowing some of the most blatant lies. Seriously, they make my blood boil and, like I said, I’m neutral.

If you truly are open to be convinced by someone here then you seriously need to cool off, take some time off being aggressive with people here that are trying to answer your questions and give you information. Be honest with yourself.

Genuinely try and be impartial for at least a week. Forget everything you know and try again to interpret information from the other point of view with getting angry at what you’re reading.
Otherwise no one will take your challenge because you’re a lost cause.

Reply

Spengler January 31, 2013 at 12:08 am

supposed to say
*without getting angry.

Reply

Jenn January 31, 2013 at 1:11 am

Justin,
Here http://www.murderpedia.org/male.G/g/gecht-robin.htm Tell me when you want more

Reply

distantobserver January 29, 2013 at 10:49 am

@BradO
” Distantobserver… Not sure what you are going on about. You have the timeline all messed up. DE (in my opinion) was in fact insane before incarceration. After the day to day order of supermax, he was more able to control himself as evidenced by all the jailhouse interviews.”

Now if one has a hopeless case in this discussion, this is it. “After the day to day order of supermax, he was more able to control himself as evidenced by all the jailhouse interviews” – this statement beats any I have ever seen by its sheer outrageousness and stupidity. It forced me actually make the effort to find out the scientific article about the supermax: availablable at http://www.supermaxed.com/NewSupermaxMaterials/Haney-MentalHealthIssues.pdf (thanks to Victoria Cooper, is this is the real name). The article sums up a great number of studies on the subject and, inter alia, comes to the conclusion that if one had ANY mental trouble before the supermax, that would become fully manifest under those inhuman conditions. So if Echols were in the least mentally ill before the treatment, his illness would deploy to the full under the “treatment”, rendering him totally unable to defend himself. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that people actually get BETTER under the supermax treatment, let alone more cunning to defend themselves. Supermax is designed to break people. Echols had Buddhist meditation, regular self-imposed exercise and the motivation provided by Lorri Davis to counteract the treatment. he SURVIVED it instead of profiting from it.

Reply

Eva_O January 29, 2013 at 6:18 pm

What makes you think he is better? Appears to me that he is still the same narcissistic piece of shit he was in 1993.

Chubacabras, indeed.

Reply

BradO January 31, 2013 at 6:33 am

Gee… The article you site is based on prisoner’s descriptions of their own symptoms and the flawed Grassian study. It is a compilation of sources who are expert witnesses for lawsuits brought on by prisoners.

Why don’t you try looking at the opinions of doctors who work in the prisons instead of taking the prisoners’ word for it?

Reply

distantobserver January 29, 2013 at 12:35 pm

@Jack 203

“The Paradise Loss propagandists” – the presuppositions is that the Paradise Lost people were propagandists. Presuppositions, as you know, work on the level of the unconscious and are not subject to conscious contesting. So you are manipulating the readers right from the start.
You must be aware, if you are that into the case, that who you describe as the the equivalent of great manipulators actually followed the task of filming a best-selling story about satanist cults and how these lead to murders. It is what they witnessed during the filming was, to quote, “punched them in the stomach”.
You point out, in a rather defensive manner, other cases where the justice was not done and where you support the defendants. I have physically no time to go into what you cite but this does not change my main point: far more cases than those exposed by the Innocent Project (or what has so derogatorily been described as “bleeding heart liberals”, or, worse yet, Hollywood “celebrities”) are those where miscarriage of justice is evident. The factors leasing to such miscarriages are numerous – some have been listed in my “long” post. The police are under pressure to find the culprits in notorious cases (such as the WM3′), the judges are fighting for re-election in a “tough-on-crime” culture, the attorneys are evaluated on the basis of the “win” rate – and indigent and/or naive defendants are used and abused to support their agenda. Innocent Project and indeed all projects to fight this “prosecution complex” are all EXTERNAL to the system – i.e., there is nothing inside the system to correct its own outrages (all appeals go to the same judge, there is considerable loss of face to the system should it acknowledge its own mistakes, etc).
All of this came to people’s awareness with DNA and the Innocence Project. Everybody now pretends that they knew it all along. Excuse me: before DNA and the project, the confidence in the police and the judge/juries was so great that essentially once one was arrested, one was also convicted and sentenced. Something that most people do not realise (nor did the WM3). I am not saying that Damien did not kill the boys (one can never prove the negative, can one?). I was, however, struck by his statement about “they cannot prove we did it if we actually did not, it is a physical impossibility”. This is what most people still think – and continue thinking until it is themselves or their relatives are involved. And if they are rebellious teenagers and still believe in “innocent until proven guilty”, they are not guarded about how their behaviour might be perceived. They did not do it so they might continue behave “outrageously” – it is the innocence that really matters. On the other hand, you have the Susan Smiths who are very aware of the impression they are making – hence the more than persuasive tears and public breakdowns.
So my post was not specifically about the WM3. It was about the “prosecution complex” at work behind all such cases. If you have found cases that are even more easy to defend (Jennings’s case) – by all means, do so, these people need you! – but do not use them as a shield that allows you to indulge in discussing, and defending, the “guilt” of the WM3.
P.S. Internet has severely damaged to find the original sources, but there was a long convincing description of the change is people’s minds (could I dare to add “non-bleeding heat liberals’ minds”?) since “Perry Mason” was replaced by “Law and Order”? In that in “Perry Mason”, the police had the WRONG person so he saved it at the last moment by exposing the RIGHT person, i.e., the real criminal, whereas “Law and Order”, the people’s favourite today, always gets the RIGHT person. A sea-change, according to the source I WILL find if you insist, from the mindset that the police and the attorney general were likely to be wrong to one where they are always right.

So to conclude: do I think that WM3 are 100% non-guilty? No, as one can never prove a negative. Do I think they did not receive fair trials – absolutely! And most importantly, do I think that people spending so much time in contesting their protestations of innocence should spend their energy on fighting the causes like Jennings – well, that’s a no-brainer …”The Paradise Loss propagandists” – the presuppositions is that the Paradise Lost people were propagandists. Presuppositions, as you know, work on the level of the unconscious and are not subject to conscious contesting. So you are manipulating the readers right from the start.
You must be aware, if you are that into the case, that who you describe as the the equivalent of great manipulators actually followed the task of filming a best-selling story about satanist cults and how these lead to murders. It is what they witnessed during the filming was, to quote, “punched them in the stomach”.
You point out, in a rather defensive manner, other cases where the justice was not done and where you support the defendants. I have physically no time to go into what you cite but this does not change my main point: far more cases than those exposed by the Innocent Project (or what has so derogatorily been described as “bleeding heart liberals”, or, worse yet, Hollywood “celebrities”) are those where miscarriage of justice is evident. The factors leasing to such miscarriages are numerous – some have been listed in my “long” post. The police are under pressure to find the culprits in notorious cases (such as the WM3′), the judges are fighting for re-election in a “tough-on-crime” culture, the attorneys are evaluated on the basis of the “win” rate – and indigent and/or naive defendants are used and abused to support their agenda. Innocent Project and indeed all projects to fight this “prosecution complex” are all EXTERNAL to the system – i.e., there is nothing inside the system to correct its own outrages (all appeals go to the same judge, there is considerable loss of face to the system should it acknowledge its own mistakes, etc).
All of this came to people’s awareness with DNA and the Innocence Project. Everybody now pretends that they knew it all along. Excuse me: before DNA and the project, the confidence in the police and the judge/juries was so great that essentially once one was arrested, one was also convicted and sentenced. Something that most people do not realise (nor did the WM3). I am not saying that Damien did not kill the boys (one can never prove the negative, can one?). I was, however, struck by his statement about “they cannot prove we did it if we actually did not, it is a physical impossibility”. This is what most people still think – and continue thinking until it is themselves or their relatives are involved. And if they are rebellious teenagers and still believe in “innocent until proven guilty”, they are not guarded about how their behaviour might be perceived. They did not do it so they might continue behave “outrageously” – it is the innocence that really matters. On the other hand, you have the Susan Smiths who are very aware of the impression they are making – hence the more than persuasive tears and public breakdowns.
So my post was not specifically about the WM3. It was about the “prosecution complex” at work behind all such cases. If you have found cases that are even more easy to defend (Jennings’s case) – by all means, do so, these people need you! – but do not use them as a shield that allows you to indulge in discussing, and defending, the “guilt” of the WM3.
P.S. Internet has severely damaged to find the original sources, but there was a long convincing description of the change is people’s minds (could I dare to add “non-bleeding heat liberals’ minds”?) since “Perry Mason” was replaced by “Law and Order”? In that in “Perry Mason”, the police had the WRONG person so he saved it at the last moment by exposing the RIGHT person, i.e., the real criminal, whereas “Law and Order”, the people’s favourite today, always gets the RIGHT person. A sea-change, according to the source I WILL find if you insist, from the mindset that the police and the attorney general were likely to be wrong to one where they are always right.

So to conclude: do I think that WM3 are 100% non-guilty? No, as one can never prove a negative. Do I think they did not receive fair trials – absolutely! And most importantly, do I think that people spending so much time in contesting their protestations of innocence should spend their energy on fighting the causes like Jennings – well, that’s a no-brainer …”The Paradise Loss propagandists” – the presuppositions is that the Paradise Lost people were propagandists. Presuppositions, as you know, work on the level of the unconscious and are not subject to conscious contesting. So you are manipulating the readers right from the start.
You must be aware, if you are that into the case, that who you describe as the the equivalent of great manipulators actually followed the task of filming a best-selling story about satanist cults and how these lead to murders. It is what they witnessed during the filming was, to quote, “punched them in the stomach”.
You point out, in a rather defensive manner, other cases where the justice was not done and where you support the defendants. I have physically no time to go into what you cite but this does not change my main point: far more cases than those exposed by the Innocent Project (or what has so derogatorily been described as “bleeding heart liberals”, or, worse yet, Hollywood “celebrities”) are those where miscarriage of justice is evident. The factors leasing to such miscarriages are numerous – some have been listed in my “long” post. The police are under pressure to find the culprits in notorious cases (such as the WM3′), the judges are fighting for re-election in a “tough-on-crime” culture, the attorneys are evaluated on the basis of the “win” rate – and indigent and/or naive defendants are used and abused to support their agenda. Innocent Project and indeed all projects to fight this “prosecution complex” are all EXTERNAL to the system – i.e., there is nothing inside the system to correct its own outrages (all appeals go to the same judge, there is considerable loss of face to the system should it acknowledge its own mistakes, etc).
All of this came to people’s awareness with DNA and the Innocence Project. Everybody now pretends that they knew it all along. Excuse me: before DNA and the project, the confidence in the police and the judge/juries was so great that essentially once one was arrested, one was also convicted and sentenced. Something that most people do not realise (nor did the WM3). I am not saying that Damien did not kill the boys (one can never prove the negative, can one?). I was, however, struck by his statement about “they cannot prove we did it if we actually did not, it is a physical impossibility”. This is what most people still think – and continue thinking until it is themselves or their relatives are involved. And if they are rebellious teenagers and still believe in “innocent until proven guilty”, they are not guarded about how their behaviour might be perceived. They did not do it so they might continue behave “outrageously” – it is the innocence that really matters. On the other hand, you have the Susan Smiths who are very aware of the impression they are making – hence the more than persuasive tears and public breakdowns.
So my post was not specifically about the WM3. It was about the “prosecution complex” at work behind all such cases. If you have found cases that are even more easy to defend (Jennings’s case) – by all means, do so, these people need you! – but do not use them as a shield that allows you to indulge in discussing, and defending, the “guilt” of the WM3.
P.S. Internet has severely damaged to find the original sources, but there was a long convincing description of the change is people’s minds (could I dare to add “non-bleeding heat liberals’ minds”?) since “Perry Mason” was replaced by “Law and Order”? In that in “Perry Mason”, the police had the WRONG person so he saved it at the last moment by exposing the RIGHT person, i.e., the real criminal, whereas “Law and Order”, the people’s favourite today, always gets the RIGHT person. A sea-change, according to the source I WILL find if you insist, from the mindset that the police and the attorney general were likely to be wrong to one where they are always right.

So to conclude: do I think that WM3 are 100% non-guilty? No, as one can never prove a negative. Do I think they did not receive fair trials – absolutely! And most importantly, do I think that people spending so much time in contesting their protestations of innocence should spend their energy on fighting the causes like Jennings – well, that’s a no-brainer …

Reply

wm3truth January 29, 2013 at 6:21 pm

“the presuppositions is that the Paradise Lost people were propagandists.”

It’s not a presupposition, it’s a conclusion based on empirical evidence.

Reply

Justin January 30, 2013 at 11:00 pm

Ok what evidence? You cant say that and not point the evidence that says they r propagandists which is such a ludicrious comment

Reply

eddievedderisafecklesssycophant January 29, 2013 at 9:54 pm

D O, both sides cling to their position with equal “desperation”. I don’t think that most people in this debate, consciously or unconsciously, are concerned with the bigger implications that you see.

Also, this sentence;

“I have physically no time to go into what you cite”

was rather humorous.

Reply

BradO January 31, 2013 at 6:37 am

Thou doth conclude too much.

Reply

distantobserver January 29, 2013 at 12:51 pm

For some mysterious reason, the Internet doubled my last post. Probably it is for me to apologise … I do, however, stand by reasoning, even though through no fault of mine it was presented twice:)

Reply

Eva_O January 29, 2013 at 6:22 pm

DO: do you really think LE would just frame 3 teenagers?

Reply

Justin January 30, 2013 at 7:41 pm

Are you that nieve? More so then just framing the kids, they wanted to look like they had everything under control and caught the horrible child murders so the prosecuter would be reelected

Reply

Eva_O January 31, 2013 at 1:57 am

No, I am not ” naive “. Supporters claim WM to be this backward, hick town full of ignorant Bible thumping Baptists. Redneck, intollerant, etc.

Why would they pick on 3 kids? Why not a crackhead? Black guy? Trucker? Anyone else at all?

No, instead they pick on 16,17,18 yr old teens. Because they wore black and listened to Metallica — just like all teens.

There was no need to frame anyone. They got it right.

Reply

justin January 31, 2013 at 3:20 am

They picked on the town wide DE. Being weird and even fascinated by death doesn’t make you murderer. Where is the hard factual evidence? I’ll tell you, it points way more to Terry Hobbs.

Reply

justin January 31, 2013 at 3:27 am

They picked on the town wierdo DE. Being weird and even fascinated by death doesn’t make you murderer. Even exhibit 500 reallt proves absolutely nothing. Wow a teenager was pissed off and acted out after being sent to a mental institute. Weird but it doesn’t make him a murderer. He was a smart who probably acted up and the docs bought it. How do u know his parents weren’t weirdos and he acted angry and pissed off at being sent away. The worst thing against DE, that I don’t think we can say for sure is true 100%,is the animal or dog torturing which still doesn’t make him a child murder and isn’t real evidence. Evidence is Hobbs hair being found in the ligature or that Jacoby kills Hobbs alibi, though even that can be a lute hearsay. Wher is the hard factual evidence pointing to DE? I’ll tell you, it points way more to Terry Hobbs.

Reply

Jack203 January 29, 2013 at 8:35 pm

Interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing.

Reply

justin January 30, 2013 at 4:09 pm

I have no reason to stick up for WM3. If I thought they were guilty I’d say screw but you can’t look at ACTUAL evidence and say there isn’tbFAR more disturbing evidence against Hobbs. Believe me I don’t believe things just cause there on TV. read devils knot. Watch PL 1-3 watch West of Memphis. Everybody is lying? Give me a break. Listen to Hobbs daughter. That was al sot as disturbing as anything g. She dreamed of having sex with her father, can’t remember what happened when she was a kid, told her mom her dad messed with her and the Terry beat the crap out of his kids. She tells therapist I think I, repressing something. Can anymore red flags go up. Not to
mention Terry and ” Hobbs family secret” that he admitted to doing the killing ti his brother and his brothers son found out. Just to many weird things. Not even mentioning DNA evidence that ONLY links Hobbs. How could they find no DNA from any of they WM 3. Hobbs DNA was found on Micheal Moore not even his stepson so there goes secondary transfer. I could go on and on about Hobbs lies in his alibi, just ask hi friend Jacoby or the neighbor who saw Hobbs with the 3 kids around 630, the last person to b seen with em which Hobbs denies. I could continue but I dontreally care anymore if you think the wm3 did it you aren’t lookin at the TRUE facts and I’m never gona convince you. Every profiler including world renowned FBI profiler say the wm3 couldn’t have done it, animal caused marks post mortem. Even Jacoby’s odd behavior makes u think about Hobbs. Just way to weird and way more evidence against Hobbs then wm3.

Reply

Jack203 January 31, 2013 at 12:38 am

I do not deny, the WM3 defense, funded by celebrities, millions of dollars and powerful lawyers have scored some points.

Instead of refuting the reasons the WM3 were convicted. (please read this)
http://midsouthjustice.org/smf/index.php?topic=122.0

They have scored some hits by bringing up another suspect into the fray. Lets not even take into consideration they previously had all their guns pointed at another stepdad Mark Byers. We’ll just ignore that one for now. I will be the first to admit, many times the easiest path to reasonable doubt is to bring up another viable suspect. The WM3 defense were right to take this path because 1) they couldn’t refute the evidence against the WM3, and 2) it worked for the most part. (they needed to plead guilty)

I will also admit there are a few coincidences I don’t like about Hobbs. I do not rule him out, but I just can’t wrap my mind around the timeframe and a really logical explanation of what happened that night if it was Hobbs instead of the WM3.

Maybe you can help, so what the hell happened that night? Can you explain in detail starting at 6:30pm on May 5th 1993, how did Hobbs accomplish this?

From what I know he has a shaky timeline between 6:30 and 8ish, but in before and after that he’s all over the place with his 4 year old daughter, Jacoby, the other victims parents. Then at after 9, Pam, and Stevie’s Grandpa, and many others. I think the best scenario brought up by the supporters deals with some sort of manhole and then Terry coming back in the middle of the night moving bodies (and bikes). It’s just utterly bizarre. Why even move the bodies?

By the way, here is Pam and Terry at a BBQ in 2012 together. If Pam truly thought Terry killed her son, would you go to a BBQ with someone and pose pictures with them?
http://www.terryhobbs.com/
Pam Hobbs and Mark Byers are poor people with drug issues. They took the money when Hollywood opened their checkbooks. Terry Hobbs is a lot of things, and has not led a life worthy of emulation. But nothing in his profile spells mass child murderer. And assuming he isn’t now a serial killer that we don’t know about…he seems to have controlled his child killing impulses since 1993.

Finally, you should know the shoelaces were mixed/matched and in some cases different colors. The children were not tied with their own shoelaces. The DNA evidence goes a lot farther for people not aware of this fact. (People that watch and believe everything biased documentaries tell them to believe)

Reply

justin January 30, 2013 at 4:13 pm

And for the Casey Anthony comment, she was found innocent by a jury so the state did not let her go. The state decided it was in everyones best interest to do Alford plea which there is No way they would have done had they believed the wm3 actually murdered, tortured and mutilated three 8 year old boys. The weirdest part is with all evidence against Hobbs, I don’t understand why he waste honestly investigated. even stepfather Byers agrees with me.

Reply

Frank January 30, 2013 at 6:14 pm

The 3 boys were at Hobbs’s house alot so secondary transfer is very likely. The Hobbs Family Secret Blabla is nothing but Hearsay, even secondary hearsay and will not hold up in court. Amanda’s blabla also is nothing else than suspicion. .A red Flag because she tells a therapist she thinks she’s repressing something?

Give me a break…she’s an attention seeking mess-maker. none of her statements would hold up in court. Wouldn’t surprise me if she’s after the 200.000 dollars prizemoney.

Hey…speaking of which …… Jessie should have another go at that by confessing again.

Reply

Justin January 30, 2013 at 11:01 pm

U going blablabla tells me you arent looking at the real evidence besides being a total douche

Reply

Justin January 30, 2013 at 11:07 pm

And you left out most of what i said about Amanda dreaming of Terry having sex with, telling her mom her dad sexual abused her, that he beat the sit out of Stevie and Amanda. Not to mention police reports for beating up his first wife, then Pam and shooting Pams brother when he confrotted him about beating her. With all the facts stated, when you watch Amanda tell the therapist I dont remember my childhood and I think im repressing something, besides she is a totally junkie dealling with something from her past, how can red flags not go off about T Hobbs. When you add that to everything else we know about Hobbs it is really scary that the police NEVER honestly looked at him even as a person of interest. All I can say is wow

Reply

Donna Marie February 12, 2013 at 4:38 am

Justin,
Describe beating Amanda and Stevie. Hitting them with a belt to punish them? I know I would think it was cruel because I grew up in the time out era but down south in 1993 if you asked how many kids got hit with the belt you would be shocked. Not one broken bone was found on Stevie. There are no medical records showing any kind of abuse. Amanda dreaming her father was having sex with her is a joke. No real therapist would allow their patient to make such a statement or put them through that interview. Like someone said look at the players in this case. Amanda is a trouble adult and teenager involved in drugs and arrested because of fights and drugs ext. Mother admits she had a drug problem with ex-husband before Terry. Pam said in her statement that her ex-husband forced her to take drugs. Are you buying that one too? I feel bad for Amanda she was abandon by her mother. Pam took off and left Amanda with Terry. Now if she thought that Terry was abusing Amanda why would she leave her? Then Pam comes back to live with Terry and Amanda to get on her feet and Amanda chooses to stay with Terry and not go with her mother. Something is wrong with this picture! Then let’s get to Terry is a violent person . Pam goes to her father and brother just like she did with her ex-husband Steve and cries to them Terry hit her . She is in a fight with Terry because she thinks he is cheating on her . Did she send them over because he hit her or did she have them go over because she was mad and jealous?. Pam has called the police on Terry in the past why not call this time . Pam’s Brother and Father go by Terry’s house to beat him up! Two huge guys ganging up on one smaller man. They could have killed him. They don’t call the police no they go there. Terry pulls the gun out to protect himself and threaten them and her brother still attacks Terry. Terry shots the brother in the middle of the fight after the brother jumps him. Afterwards Terry is still scared and threatens them to back off. Now who are really violent ones? I see the Hicks as the bullies and violent ones. This is the first time Pam has done this. She did this to her ex-husband Steve when she accused him of forcing drugs on her and she became an addict.

Reply

Jack203 February 14, 2013 at 12:19 am

Excellent post. Thanks for writing.

Reply

Justin January 30, 2013 at 7:32 pm

The Hobbs family secret and all the real evidence points more toward Hobbs then the WM3. I cant say for sure Hobbs did it or the WM3 did, none of us can, but if you trully look at ACTUAL evidence and not hear say it points to Hobbs. The first thing to look for in a murder case is motive. What motive did the WM3 have. The whole satanic thing is such bs. Everyone who testified about DE and actually going to a real satanic cult meetings recanted. They had nothing to gain by recanting but they sure had something to gain when they originally testified since the woman Vicki and the kid in jail who testified about Jason were criminals who were hasd a clear motive to lie at the trial. DE was a KID who had a rough life. He was a outcast and bit of a smart ass. Im sure like most of us he did some things he’s not proud of when he was a kid but its so obvious the town went crazy after the poor police work and wanted to believe this wierd kid was part of a cult rather then the truth that what seemed like a normal (somewhat) stepfather living next door could be a murder. If DE really killed or tortured dogs I have a big problem with that but even that doesn’t make him a murder. Honestly in West of Memphis one of the weirdest parts was Hobbs daughter. She thinks she is repressing something and had dreams of Terry having sex with her. I think she doesnt wanna believe her dad could do such A thing but I think she knows something. Maybe not for sure he did it but I think she knows he was capable of doing it. And what about the world renowned FBI profiler who basically says no way did the WM3 do this and that Hobbs just about perfectly fits profile of who did. Why doeas Hobbs own friend and alibi say that Hobbs alibi was bullshit. Did you see Jacoby break down. Not sayin he was part of it but he sure seemed like he had a guilty conscience and knew something. I could continue but I gotta go out. Though I think you guys arent honestly looking at fact Im interested in what you have to say and though I have read one thing here to make me believe the WM3 were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt I am open to actually facts and evidence that would sway me.

Reply

Justin January 30, 2013 at 7:35 pm

The whole secendary transfer thing, explain how the hair was tied into the knot around the ligature used to hogtie the kids if it was secondary transfer. That hair almost certainly belongs to the killer.

Reply

Justin January 30, 2013 at 7:39 pm

And Jessie was a mentally retarded Kid who was harrassed all day by the police and would have said anything because he thought he would be able to go home after if he said what they wanted to hear. Besides the wrestling alibi, the whole problem with JM’s timeline, and the fact that every credible thing he said he was lead into by the police.

Reply

Eva_O January 31, 2013 at 2:05 am

And that tells me that you haven’t researched actual case documents.

Go to Callahan.8k and then I might take your opinion seriously.

Reply

Frank January 30, 2013 at 8:54 pm

The wrestling alibi totally fell apart at trial. And regarding the timeline prblem. it’s not as bad as the supporters want you to believe. For example, Offshe was just dead wrong in claiming the police fed Jessie the term “at night”. The first one who used the term “AT NIGHT “was Jessie himself. Pretty damaging.
About the mentally retarded thing………….
Why don’t you read the transcripts? All your questions might already have been answered. ( read it, believe it, it’s your destiny…haha )
And yes i saw Jacobi breaking down which tells me NOTHING.
I sometimes think in the end supporters want to deny the crime ever happened.

Reply

Justin January 30, 2013 at 9:17 pm

Jessies story began at noon and as the cops fed, like almost everything factually he says, it got later and later until it fit the police timeline. Not real evidence if u ask me.

Reply

Frank January 30, 2013 at 10:03 pm

On the left side of this page you can find “the case against the wm3″.
Pretty interesting stuff.
Happy reading! regards…Frank

Reply

Justin January 30, 2013 at 11:10 pm

Read that. There is no true factually evidence to prove they did it beyond a reasonable doubt and far more pointing towars Hobbs. Was the FBI profiler, cant remember name, lying cause he thinks Hobbs fit the profile and atleast should have been looked at as a suspect

Reply

Eva_O January 31, 2013 at 2:07 am

Douglas. And he was wrong re Green River Killer and look how many more died.

Reply

Justin January 30, 2013 at 11:45 pm

Took this from link on this site about manholes and though I think WM3 truth is lyin to people about alot of facts and misleading people i give you some credit for atleast posing both sides of the issues on SOME points. Follow the manhole link that yoy get to at the bottom of Dumpsite or Crimes scene link to left and you find this well pu tstatement further putting the spotlight on the obvious suspect to anyone with a brain, Terry Hobbs. Sorry if a little harsh but lets be honest.

” If we accept the above evidence, ……the victims were confronted by their perpetrator within the Blue Beacon Woods around 7:00 PM on May 5th, 1993. They were severely injured and their bodies secluded in a concrete drainage structure where a fur-bearing animal predated on the bodies. The perpetrator returned to the scene, probably at least two more times before sun-rise on May 6th, removed the victims’ clothes (before the animal predation), tied the bodies with their own shoelaces, and moved them to a nearby ditch where they were submerged under two feet of water along with their clothes.
This scenario would require the perpetrator to spend around 30 minutes during the initial attack…an additional 15 to 20 minutes while he stripped the victims of their clothing,… and another 30 minutes to tie them wrist-to-ankle and move the bodies to the ditch.
Statistics on murdered children indicate that the most likely perpetrators are close acquaintences or family members. One family member admittedly spent “all night long” returning to the small patch of woods where the bodies were eventually found. It seems very suspicious that this family member would spend so much time in a 2 1/2 acre patch of woods, yet claim to have not completely searched the entirety of this small area. It’s also highly suspicious that this suspect would not have searched the manholes within the wooded area considering the fact that he claimed, in two sworn statements, that he was aware that the boys may have been hiding in a manhole.
A hair found in the ligature knot of Michael Moore matches the mDNA profile of this same family member.Another hair found on an exposed tree-root at the discovery site matches the mDNA profile of a friend of this suspect whose house and vehicle he had been in before and after the boys disappeared.(This is alittle suspect as there is no real evidence to say Jacoby was invloved and mDNA could have been from like 7% of population)(- FACTS) The WMPD did not interview this family member until 14 years after the murders. His interview contained many contradictions to other witness statements.
This suspect has no alibi for several critical time-periods on the evening of May 5th and the early morning of May 6th. He even tried to create a false alibi for the time-period immediately preceding the last sightings of the victims. The suspect also has a history of sexual and physical abuse and is known to have been a frequent illegal drug user. Recent sworn statements from three witnesses place this family member with all three boys shortly before they disappeared. The suspect has continuously denied seeing any of the boys on the day of the murders.
This suspected family member and, In My Opinion, the killer of Steve Branch, Michael Moore, and Chris Byers is…

Terry Wayne Hobbs. (stepfather of Steve Branch)”

To not even look at Hobbs as even a person of interest ever, is criminal by the WMPD and DE.

Reply

Donna Marie January 31, 2013 at 1:01 am

Justin,
Here are Echols alibis

Who is telling the truth ?
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/img/bearden.html
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/dwe.html
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/lg_3_8_94.html
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/narleneh_statement.html
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/hollyg1.html
http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/domit.html
The problem with any of these alibis is they are all different and why the need to lie at all. His mother’s got shut down in court and Bearden’s is just the opposite then Domini Alia Teer and her mothers.

None of these are the truth because the truth is that Echols and Jessie and Jason were no where to be found. The had the right killers you just set them free.

Reply

Eva_O January 31, 2013 at 2:10 am

The manhole theory? Y’all still buy that? The crime scene is where the kids were found.

Reply

justin February 1, 2013 at 2:12 am

Whether it was the crime scene or just a body dumbsite is still an unanswered. And legitimate question with no blood and such little evidence found. Or do you know something I’m missing cause there is only theory about this.

Reply

Jack203 January 31, 2013 at 3:19 am

Can a longtime follower of this case answer a question I have?

Was Damien Echols caught/charged masturbating in public 3 months before the murders?

I was under the impression he was, but I searched the internet tonight expecting to find proof and didn’t find it. Apparently, I got that impression from the BlinkonCrime article. But going back the article is not clear and that it might have been DE’s caretaker that was caught.

This is not a game changer, but it is something I had in my mind to explain the sexual deviancy of the actual crime. And to be frank, the sexual deviancy described by Jesse, and I believe corroborated by the semen evidence does not sound like typical teenage boys thrill kills.

If I was a juror, and all evidence available was admissable in court, and I had to be approximately 90% sure the WM3 were guilty, without some kind of history of sexual deviancy. It’s close to that level. It’s close to reasonable doubt. Especially if the Terry Hobbs witnesses are not countered effectively.

I still think the WM3 are guilty, but 75 % sure is different than 99% sure.

Reply

William Ramsey February 1, 2013 at 5:19 pm

See http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jbryant_statement.html

Jessica Bryant, age 11, and her parents provided a statement to police indicating that Damien Echols hid in a bush “digging in his pockets” while watching her and her nine year old friend playing in her yard before church on a Sunday morning. While researching my book, I couldn’t find any record of such an arrest, but did find Blinkoncrime’s reference.

Best,

William Ramsey
Abomination: Devil Worship and Deception in the West Memphis Three Murders.
Available on Amazon and Kindle.

Reply

Jack203 February 5, 2013 at 12:01 pm

Thank you William! That does explain it quite nicely. So, the history of sexual deviancy is still a bit up in the air.

Reply

Marian July 13, 2013 at 9:47 am

Blinkoncrime is a joke. I would take anything written by shannon stoy with a grain of salt.

Reply

Donna Marie February 12, 2013 at 2:21 am

Jack,
Damien Echols wasn’t your typical teenager. Echols and his PR team would love you to forget exhibit 500 because it is records of violent acts and who he really was at the time of the murders. I don’t think the crime was sexual as much as it was more horrifying. Echols PR team wants you to believe he was pick on because the clothes he wore and the music he listen to. They want you to believe this was satanic panic. When in the records there were others that admitted to the police they practiced Wicca and another that gave a statement wearing a Metallica tee shirt . The truth is if you read exhibit 500 you will see that he was look into because he was very sick . From his statements he is making now I still think he has no touch of reality. His new statements he lies and changes his stories around and all you have to do is look it up to find out he is lying.

http://callahan.8k.com/images/murray/murray_statement.jpg

Reply

Justin January 30, 2013 at 11:55 pm

DA

Reply

ScottH January 31, 2013 at 12:53 am

If you really knew wtf you were talking about, number one, you would know better than to even bring up bullshit like the manhole theory. You’d be better served talking about Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster, much more believable. Two , you would know the police have in fact interviewed Hobbs. Three, you wouldn’t site the pl docs, devil’s knot, and west of Memphis as your beacons of truth regarding this case. Judging from your grammatical prowess, I can’t say I’m surprised.

Reply

justin January 31, 2013 at 3:58 am

Wow so weird the kids played in manholes in the are and there bodies could have been left there temporarily then moved. That sounds a lot crazier then a satanic ritual killing where teenage boys rape and torture 3 eight year old boys. And Jason cut off the penis and sucked the blood out and then for some reason put the balls in his mouth. That sounds a lot more plausible. I gotta go search for big foot now even that’s more reasonable then bs made up by wmpd

Reply

justin January 31, 2013 at 4:19 am

Yeah police interviewed Hobbs only 14 years later, giving him no time to straighten out his story. And that was a real tough interview he got. Listen to his own testimony in his defamation suit against Dixie chicks. He wasn’t veer smart with that as a killer who got away with it for so long might get over confident. Sure made Hobbs past sound pretty scary. He was known violent abusive drug user who treated Stevie like the red headed step child and probably got pissed and unintentionally beat Stevie to or almost to death and had to kill all three to cover it up. probably no sexual abuse at all and all crazy marks where proven to be mostly animal bites or being dragged on pavement not as stupid as it sounds but bybdragging back of knife on kids back while murdering and torturing kids. Sounds to me like you guys are the gullible ones who believe whatever an authority figure tells you is true

Reply

justin January 31, 2013 at 4:24 am

let’s talk facts and not name calling or trying to make fun of people with out listing any facts, just saying im right and you are dumb and must be wrong. Scott. just show your character. And I don’t care about grammar. I am typing on iPad and auto correct gets a little crazy besides I’m a chef and probaly far more intelligent then you whether you are a better speller or not I can definitely cook a better meal

Reply

Jenn January 31, 2013 at 1:19 am

Justin here is another dabbler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Sellers

Reply

justin January 31, 2013 at 4:01 am

I actually enjoy reading these articles though I am about as non violent as can be just interested in what humans and the human psyche are capable of. Maybe a pychitrist can call me next Charles mansion which I have no idea how you know when that person has never really committed violent acts

Reply

justin January 31, 2013 at 4:10 am

Again there was still a motive in the killings. The clerk wouldn’t sell him beer and I’m sure he had a reason for killing his parents, though I am not at all saying it was justified. No motive, reason at all and nothing really to gain by wm3 by killing those kids

Reply

justin January 31, 2013 at 3:49 am

I did say it happened it’s just incredible rare and I don’t even know, all though they probable are, if these are true as I am naturally skeptically of the stae or government and definitely believe the police or da would lie to convict if they thought DE was a scumbag whether he was guilty of this crime or not. I think they said it’s a matter of time anyway with DE so let’s put him away, at least Fogelman knew a lot were lies. like the knife he lied to the jury about and said was used in the crime when he knew Jasons mom through knife in lake a year before murder. If he knowingly lied about that who know what else or even if he knew the whole case was a lie. Aganin ther is a reason the wm3 are free and able to walk the streets today because they know they’re innocent.

Reply

justin January 31, 2013 at 3:50 am

Though there are almost no “thrill kills” with no motive that are as personal as the killings in this case. Whith no motive the de had nothing to go on but a crazy theory like a satanic ritual killing.

Reply

justin January 31, 2013 at 3:52 am

I read Callahan and even two out of three who wrote that site now support the innocence of the wm3

Reply

Frank January 31, 2013 at 6:40 am

No need to call me a total douche. Before you know it the level of conversation will be as low as Amanda’s twittering.

Reply

justin February 1, 2013 at 2:14 am

Your right I apoligize and don’t know you but I still felt your repeated blahblah remarks was kinda douche

Reply

Frank January 31, 2013 at 9:48 am

one of the points that’s always been bothering me is when Paul Ford asked Jason “do you think Damien could have killed those 3 little boys?”
And after a long pause Jason says “i don’t know , they made it seem like he did”.

Now either they were together doing it or doing something else or they weren’t together.
If they weren’t together why would Jason now take the Alford plea?
And if in fact they were together doing something else why weren’t they able to present an alibi?
And don’t give me that crap that he took the plea to save Damien.

If they weren’t together at the time Jason now should have said to the judge concerning the Alford plea:
“Your honor, I know i’m innocent and i don’t know what Damien was doing at the time. I won’t take the plea because i don’t know whether Damien is worth saving from deathrow. What i do know however is that if i take the plea i will NOT be exonerated, i will NOT be able to study law and the file will be closed and the real killers will not be searched for any longer.
And since my lawyers have gathered OVERWHELMING evidence of my innocence i’m really looking forward to a new trial, your honor

Reply

Fred J Walsh February 2, 2013 at 1:40 pm

“Do you think Damien could have killed those 3 little boys?”
And after a long pause Jason says “i don’t know , they made it seem like he did”.
Now either they were together doing it or doing something else or they weren’t together…

———————–

One reason I think D&J were together that night is Jennifer Bearden’s statement. She told police…

1. …that when speaking to D&JB at ~5pm, they were planning to “go somewhere” together
2. …that when she tried to reach D that night ~8pm at home, his Grandma told her D wasn’t there.
3. …that when speaking to D after 9:20pm, he had told her that he’d been out that night — with Jason, driven by Jason’s mom. Jason’s mom was actually at work from 3-11pm and unavailable to be driving them anywhere.

Further corroborating the notion of D being out that night is Heather Cliett’s relating that Holly told her D said he was “out walking around” that night.

Just one area where the circumstantial evidence fits a WM3 Guilt narrative. “West of Memphis” actually manages to use Bearden to sell an Innocence narrative, by having her read from a poorly worded Police report that summarized her 10-page statement to police. Her detailed statement clearly states she was on the phone around 5pm and then later, after 9:20pm, but NOT in-between — the way the movie tries to imply, by using the badly worded report summary rather than the statement. It’s one of the movie’s biggest deceptions.

Reply

ScottH January 31, 2013 at 7:21 pm

Hey Justin, I’m typing on an ipad as well, and my posts don’t look like they were made by a 6 year old running low on Ritalin. You’re a chef huh? I work in surgery, guarantee I can close a total knee arthroplasty faster than you.

Reply

justin February 1, 2013 at 2:24 am

Yeah and I can cook anything better then you can dream of in, my sleep, though don’t know what that or your knee arthroplasty or even my grammar has to do with what were discussing. I don’t care enough to really double check all my post so shit happens. Oh well. For you I will try and improve my grammar. not reallly

Reply

Cory January 31, 2013 at 11:35 pm

Why do people ignore one of the suspects repeating ‘yes we did it’ to his lawyer in favor of convoluted murder plots involving manholes & Terry Hobbs?

Reply

eddievedderisafecklesssycophant February 1, 2013 at 12:44 am

That’s the quantum leap right there.

Once you convince yourself that every single Misskelley confession is false, it’s not hard to believe all the other shit that gets shoveled your way.

Reply

justin February 1, 2013 at 1:31 am

This came straight from Hobbs

One family member admittedly spent “all night long” returning to the small patch of woods where the bodies were eventually found. It seems very suspicious that this family member would spend so much time in a 2 1/2 acre patch of woods, yet claim to have not completely searched the entirety of this small area. It’s also highly suspicious that this suspect would not have searched the manholes within the wooded area considering the fact that he claimed, in two sworn statements, that he was aware that the boys may have been hiding in a manhole.

And he wasn’t interviewed by wmpd for 14 years . I do not whose guilty or not it just seems weird to miss with a case with such little hard evidence.

Reply

Frank February 1, 2013 at 5:01 am

Why did the 3 boys go to the woods. Weren’t they supposed to be home for dinner.
Did they have an appointment or something. they seemed eager to go there as i understand it.
And for Justin..why didn’t Hobbs hogtie his brother in law?

Reply

Frank February 1, 2013 at 7:04 am

BTW did anyone ever check what knots the WM3 normally use when they tie up things?
And another one for justin. If No hair had been found at the crime scene i’m sure you would go for a bald one. Kojak did it.

Reply

Rick February 1, 2013 at 9:25 pm

Justin, you should research the murder of James Bulger in England, a few months before the WM3 killed the 3 boys. It’s my firm belief that DE saw this on the news, and influenced him to do the same, though with his ease of torturing/killing/disemboweling dogs, he had it in him anyway I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

Reply

Frank February 1, 2013 at 9:54 pm

ok i.ll stop joking. i know it ain’t all that funny.Sorry for that.

Let us not forget that the WM3 are convicted killers. Therefore they have the burden of proof now to proof their innocence. So it’s not the state’s case to proof them guilty yet again.
It’s the wm3′s move now. And all they do is point at Hobbs with evidence that would not be sufficient to convict him.
And i think it was a mistake to accept the Alford plea. We are now PAST the point that no reasonable jury today would convict them. No argument concerning that is valid anymore.
They really need to find the real killer(s). And i don’t think they take that task all too seriously, happy as they are to be out of jail. And especially Echols’s interviews are a disgrace and convince me more and more that the wm3-supporters were fooled as no other before.

Reply

Shaun Wheeler February 2, 2013 at 4:47 pm

In Re: the origins –

Echols frames the document by reference to ‘mitigation’. That took place exactly once and exists in no other context.

The only person for whom any document exists tying them to the mitigation phase is none other than Gloria “Glori” Shettles.

Prior to working for Ron Lax, she worked for the State of Tennessee. I could find no evidence that she had ever been charged or convicted of perjury. If Echols is aware of such a charge I would invite him to provide the details.

Note that I have very little to say that is good about Ron Lax. He is not merely against capital punishment, he is against securing justice for dead cops and has a very inflated opinion of his skills and abilities. He injected himself into the defense of cop killers Orlando Garcia and Alejandro Chevo Gauna, neither of whom were facing more than 25 years.

That said, there is nothing to suggest that Ron is hiring felons or has hired them in the past. It would not surprise me, but there is simply no evidence of it.

Exhibit 500 was introduced during sentencing. Glori Shettles is the person who prepared it. She has not been convicted of perjury but even if she was, it would have zero bearing on the admissibility of the exhibit that the State, not Val Price and not Paul Ford, asked to be entered into the record.

Always happy to help.

Reply

Baalbarath February 10, 2013 at 7:13 pm

Approaching twenty, can it possibly be
What was always assumed, is not really “ME”
The M with four lines, block out the first three
What is remaining, ahhh…, only DE
Rights Form, question two, will show you the D
Entombed for two decades, its servants “M E”

Reply

William Ramsey February 13, 2013 at 6:38 pm

Baalberath is the name given to Damien Echols by his spirit guide he referred to in 1994 as “the old man.”

“I went to hell. I was not a dream. I was really there. It wasn’t that bad. The old man took me there. He is my constant companion now. My new name is Baalberath. We are leaving soon now. I have set the date for October 31st, Samhain—All Hallows Eve (Halloween).”

http://callahan.8k.com/images/damiene/writings/

William Ramsey
Abomination: Devil Worship and Deception in the West Memphis Three Murders.

Reply

William Ramsey February 13, 2013 at 6:40 pm

occult911.wordpress.com

I just finished a short video about the book . You can see it at my website:

http://www.occult911.com

Reply

Baalbarath February 14, 2013 at 4:37 pm

William, “thumbs up” for catching this, but you give “Rosey” far too much credit. DE simply assigned himself the name and spelled it wrong (s/b Baalberith) in the process. Was it a product of his imagination? No, it was straight out of Never on a Broomstick (pp. 132 & 137). Same place he found, among other things, the three spells (p. 52) and list of seven devils/sins (p. 138).

Do any agree “ME” is really “MDE”?

Reply

Donna February 15, 2013 at 1:29 pm

Yes

Reply

William Ramsey February 20, 2013 at 3:12 pm

Thumbs up. Clever.

And you are correct that Baalberith is referenced in Never on a Broomstick, Chapter 5: Rise of the Devil on pages 132 and 137. Baalberith is referred to as the “Devil’s recorder” and the “prince of the Cherubim” who “tempts men to homicide and to be quarrelsome, contentious, and blasphemous.” Seems an altogether fitting and proper name for a convicted child killer.

http://www.occult911.com
occult911.wordpress.com

Reply

Donna Marie February 12, 2013 at 1:50 am

Justin,
I hate to copy and paste but I read something that might help you with your thoughts on thinking why the DA would make this deal. It clearly wasn’t because they thought the 3 were innocent. Why did they take the deal if they had all this great evidence to free them and then they plead guilty? So here it is ……copy and paste this might help. By the way Fogelman never lied he just didn’t buy what they were saying and neither do I . It seems kind of funny Jason was having his brother return other items to a friend and there it is a knife in the lake . It was his mother throwing it in the lake . I dont buy it even now .

http://blinkoncrime.com/2011/08/15/the-west-memphis-three-series-part-i-set-free-or-where-they-should-be/comment-page-3/
Now you are starting to think along the right lines but you are only looking at one piece of the puzzle and consequently drawing the wrong conclusions. Forget about the evidence from the trial. Really try to forget everything you have read and heard and look at this with new eyes using only your own common sense. Now, look at the players and their movements. You are looking at why the state would enter into the plea agreement but what about the WM3?

They have just been granted an evidentiary hearing by the Arkansas Supreme Court. If successful at the evidentiary hearing, which is likely, the WM3 get a new trial. The trial date will be set at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing. Assume, for the sake of argument, that they are innocent.

For 18 years they have been waiting for this new trial. They have told their supporters that they have new evidence that will not only win them an acquittal but will exonerate them completely. When they prevail at the trial they can sue the state for millions. Their opportunity has finally come. They will be free, exonerated, and, while still in their 30s, they will soon be financially set for life. So, what do they do next? Don’t listen to their words; watch their movements, and ask yourself these three questions?

1) Why did the WM3 hire Stephen Braga as lead trial attorney?

At the time he is retained, Braga is a DC attorney who specializes in corporate law and white collar crime. His clients are politicians, lobbyists, and corporate big wigs who run afoul of the law. He is a negotiator and a fixer and he is very good at his job. He is not, however, a criminal trial lawyer with murder trial experience.

The WM3 have millions of dollars for their legal defense and access to millions more. Criminal defense lawyers with murder trial experience should be lining up to try their case. Not only an innocent client, whose acquittal is likely, but a rich one. This is the Holy Grail for criminal trial lawyers.

But wait, Lorrie is flying all over the country looking for a trial attorney to replace Dennis Reorden, who is an appellate attorney. But, Lorrie can’t find a single criminal trial attorney with capital murder trial experience to try the case. Enter Stephen Braga. Why hire a well connected DC fixer, with no murder trial experience, to try a capital murder case? This is the equivalent of hiring an internist to perform your triple bypass surgery.

2) Why did Braga agree to work pro bono?

A high profile capital murder trial of this nature requires many hundreds of attorney hours. When you are not in court you are preparing for your next day in court. You are appeasing the press, meeting with your client, meeting with investigators, interviewing and preparing witnesses, and on and on, working nearly 24/7. Your personal life suffers. Your other clients are put on hold. Why work for free when your client can afford to pay?

Common practice is to charge the rich to pay for the poor; not the other way around.

3) Why did the WM3 agree to plead guilty?

Do Echols, Baldwin, and Miskelley all agree to throw away their bright futures because of Echol’s poor health? He looks healthy enough to me; healthy enough to jet around the globe upon release. Miskelley does not even appear to like him. Yet all three make the deal.

Can they not wait another 6 months or so for the big, big, payoff. They say the proceedings will drag on for years. How, when the state is prohibited from retrying them once they are acquitted? The state does not enjoy the same appeal rights as defendants do and they cannot even appeal the evidentiary hearing ruling as a matter of right.

Instead of claiming their victory, walking away with their heads held high, and their pockets soon to be full, they opt to become convicted child murderers who will, after the fanfare dies down, be struggling to find work and make ends meet.

Forget the evidence; you don’t believe it. You don’t need to. If you can answer these three questions relying only on your common sense, and not on what you have seen, read, and heard you will have your answer

Reply

Marian July 13, 2013 at 10:19 am

Anything that comes from that blink website is suspect. Blink is the person who believes the harrington killer is a descendant of an Anchorage Farm slave. Her rationale for this belief is incredibly convoluted and strange. She is the same person who spent months researching the wrong house in a case. She is the same person who accuses any witness in the harrington case as being the killer, then she and her minions harrass that person. That’s just the tip of the iceberg with Blink.
If one actually reads through her crap, it becomes apparent that Stoy is either insane or a crime profiteer. I understand a broken clock is right twice a day, but I wouldn’t count on her information of wm3 as being accurate.

Reply

Sov February 14, 2013 at 3:43 pm

You would think after 18 years Damien would have made up a better story.

Reply

Sov February 14, 2013 at 6:20 pm

The whole case seems to fall in line with other youths who kill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Smith_%28murderer%29
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/19/alyssa-bustamante-slaying_n_364544.html?just_reloaded=1
While the WM3 were not as young as those they were certainly immature for their age.
The murders are over the top, in secluded areas and not really thought out.

Reply

Greg February 15, 2013 at 11:21 pm

I am curious. Has anyone had an interview with Jessie since his “release”? I’ll bet that if they put his own confessions to him,he would break apart.

Reply

Frank February 16, 2013 at 6:58 pm

BTW.. i saw some recent photoos of DE. he is getting fat again and all moon-faced just like he was while murdering the 8 year olds. Yes he’s really starting to look his happy old self again. About time he picks up where he left off.
Thanks WM3 supporters..we owe you one.

Reply

tom February 17, 2013 at 11:49 pm

When visiting Salem, MA be sure to avoid the Common and the Howard Street Cemetery. There’s a witch in the immediate area.

Reply

tom February 22, 2013 at 12:02 am

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/02/the-unsettling-recklessness-of-peter-jacksons-west-of-memphis/273243/

“In Jackson’s mind, the courts have already failed. For him, then, film is a viable surrogate for justice, and he is the self-appointed producer-prosecutor. The creators of West of Memphis decide not only what evidence the audience gets to see, but also how it should be interpreted….”

a journalist who questions the methods and motives of Damien’s biggest $$ supporter, Peter Jackson?? Can it be??

Reply

tom February 22, 2013 at 12:12 am

…….and from Burk Sauls regarding the above referenced article:
“My point is that these two film projects, the PL films and WOM are completely different kinds of films – One film shot things as they happened and didn’t alter the observed events to any substantial degree… the other film CREATED the events they were filming AND told us what we should be thinking about what we were seeing.”

Both films erred by omission, Burk.

Reply

ScottH February 22, 2013 at 6:59 pm

And all 4 films are absolutely reprehensible for the repeated omission of documented facts that clearly point to the 3′s guilt.

Reply

addict April 2, 2013 at 7:32 pm

“It proves that people who say “I was just like Damien Echols at that age” have no clue what they’re talking about. (If you read this whole page and still believe you’re just like Damien Echols, please get some psychiatric help before you kill a bunch of people.)”

I couldn’t comment on that page, David K, but I seriously LOL’d when I saw this. Especially given you thank me in the credits. Hahahaha!

Reply

addict April 2, 2013 at 8:30 pm

Nevermind, David… I read your quote minus the first sentence totally out of context on the West Memphis Three Facts site. They put it forth like you are saying that anyone who doesn’t believe JJ&D are guilty need psychiatric help. I was like, wow… that doesn’t sound at all like something he’d say. Carry on… :)

Reply

brook April 6, 2013 at 9:56 am

Very well done article. I do think you should include the many acts of violence that are recorded in the 500 including threats. Also that Damien admitted he was homicidal to a few medical staff. Also its extremely important to emphasize the dates. The 500 reports were all done before the killing. Some might think the reports are for docs to get their 15 minutes of fame which is Not the case.They were not written in response to the murders but were already in his files. Lastly … how many teenagers have 500 pages in their mental health records?! The number of teen that do is small by comparison. Any person.. kid or adult… who had a 500 page mental health record had serious problems.

Reply

brook April 6, 2013 at 10:12 am

I am a huge non but got to thinking ….it might work out great if it can be shown lucas or Hollingsworth were involved in the crime. If the wm3 team can show their guilt …well then the WM3 could possibly be charged for withholding evidence, conspiracy blah blah blah.. not ideal but if it puts the wm3 in prison for 6 months its at least something.

Reply

Jeffrey Glock September 25, 2013 at 6:17 pm

First a little disclaimer. At this point, I’m not trying to either defend OR accuse anyone. I just want to discuss a few things that I find interesting. Which means I’m going to be all over the map, and if there is some sort of ‘site etiquette’, I don’t know what it is, and someone will have to point it out to me. First question I have is, in regards to the issues of ‘knives vs predation’, has anyone discussed the subject of “What kind of animal engages in predatory or scavenging behavior underwater?” My recollection is that one expert said the wounds on that one poor boy were made by some animal. He spoke of the issue of wounds that were “consistent with” paw and dragging and positioning of prey, and apparently feeding. But if this young man was submerged in 2- 2-1/2 feet of water, I can’t see a racoon, fox, squirrel, dog, cat, whatever, being the cause of the wounds. Fish? Crabs? Crawfish? OK, maybe. But none of those would leave paw marks. Some combination? OK. But I still think things are a little murky there…

Reply

Jess N October 26, 2013 at 8:24 pm

Just a question..

I’m sure I’m not the first person to ask this, but if ‘Damien’ changed his name due to supposedly researching Saint Damion- why would he spell it completely different from who he was so impressed with? By exchanging the A with an E, that clearly begs to differ about his Satanic associations that he denies.

Reply

erbear92 November 23, 2013 at 3:40 am

I have been reading this website, reading the comments, and looking at all of the links being posted, especially the Callahan link. I am not on anyones side in this matter, I cant choose a side, because both seem plausible. I have been studying crime scenes, and criminal psychology for about 12 years now, I have always had an interest in such things and while some people find it depressing and some even sickening, I assure you I am far from a sick person. There are a few questions I want to ask, and a few things I would like to add to the conversation…
1. Are you saying that “Bojangles Man” could not, in any way, shape or form have been involved simply because of the cast on his arm?
(Im not saying this sarcastically or rudely, I honestly want to know, and it is the same for the next question…)
2. Do you believe that Terry Hobbs could have had ANYTHING to do with the murders?

Now my statements…
1. When people say that it could not have been the boys because of the lack of DNA, I think what they are trying to say, is that, if the murder was indeed what some are calling a “thrill kill” committed by 3 teenage boys, it is likely that they would have left some sort of DNA or transfer at the scene…This is because they were 3 teenage boys, not experienced killers such as Ted Bundy or BTK. And as for the “the bodies were in water, which washes away DNA” comments, water does not completely wash away all DNA or transfer. Yes, it would wash away blood, but there would still be traces of blood if luminol was used (did they use luminol in the 90′s?) I mean, even when you extensively clean up blood with BLEACH, it still shows up under luminol(Sorry if I am spelling it wrong) Also, water probably would not have washed away fingerprints, and it would not have washed away any evidence left above the water, if there were any. Again, I have extensively studied crime scene investigating and criminal psychology. Yes, it is true that in a lot of murder cases there is not any DNA, but I think this is what people are talking about. In those murder cases, the murderer has, many times, planned out their attacks on people, they know what they are going to do, how they will do it, and take extra precautions to NOT leave DNA. This is very different from a teenager who takes the “golden opportunity” to commit a thrill kill in the woods.
2. Those talking about the Alford Plea and how they should have waited for the trial if they had new evidence. I would agree with you if one of them was not on death row. If for some reason they had lost that time in court, even with the new evidence, Damien Echols would have been executed. Now, when you talk about evidence you have to realize that explosive evidence to a person behind bars accused of such a heinous crime, might not feel so explosive for the judge dealing with the case. It might even feel to the judge that the evidence is very miniscule. Again, you have to look at it from the point of view of the person that has been behind bars for 18 years.

I will reiterate that I am not on anybodys side, I lean more towards their innocence I think and a lot of it has to do with me wanting people to be good, and not wanting to believe that kids could commit this crime, but a lot of also has to do with the things I listed, there is more, but, it is fairly late and I am not sure how much longer I can keep my eyes open. I guess I will check back tomorrow. Again, I am not trying to attacking either side, just pointing out some things, so please don’t attack me in a hostile or rude way. Thank you! :]

Reply

Kristin February 18, 2014 at 12:20 pm

Actually, I’m really confused by Damien’s statements here. Exhibit 500 is a pretty uncontroversial assortment of records. In murder one trials, these documents are always collected. I know because I have used them to help compile psychological histories for other inmates used by the defense to prove mitigating factors. If these documents had not been presented at trial, they almost certainly would have come up in the sentencing phase of the trial since they present evidence of mental illness, which is a mitigating factor in capital cases.

I was predisposed to support him. I just see that there is far more evidence against these three than anyone else. It shocks me that the whole world has just accepted the Hollywood narrative about this without conducting basic fact checks. He says so many things that are absolutely ridiculous. You know how he claims that his time in prison made him ultra-sensitive to bright lights? That is not even a thing.

Damien’s psych profile is not shocking. The documents confirm everything I already suspected about him. The people who commit the most heinous crimes very often have psychological histories eerily like his.

Reply

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: